IMPORTANCE Rural populations have a higher prevalence of obesity and poor access to weight loss programs. Effective models for treating obesity in rural clinical practice are needed.OBJECTIVE To compare the Medicare Intensive Behavioral Therapy for Obesity fee-for-service model with 2 alternatives: in-clinic group visits based on a patient-centered medical home model and telephone-based group visits based on a disease management model. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Cluster randomized trial conducted in 36 primary care practices in the rural Midwestern US. Inclusion criteria included age 20 to 75 years and body mass index of 30 to 45. Participants were enrolled from February 2016 to October 2017. Final follow-up occurred in December 2019.INTERVENTIONS All participants received a lifestyle intervention focused on diet, physical activity, and behavior change strategies. In the fee-for-service intervention (n = 473), practice-employed clinicians provided 15-minute in-clinic individual visits at a frequency similar to that reimbursed by Medicare (weekly for 1 month, biweekly for 5 months, and monthly thereafter). In the in-clinic group intervention (n = 468), practice-employed clinicians delivered group visits that were weekly for 3 months, biweekly for 3 months, and monthly thereafter. In the telephone group intervention (n = 466), patients received the same intervention as the in-clinic group intervention, but sessions were delivered remotely via conference calls by centralized staff. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was weight change at 24 months. A minimum clinically important difference was defined as 2.75 kg. RESULTS Among 1407 participants (mean age, 54.7 [SD, 11.8] years; baseline body mass index, 36.7 [SD, 4.0]; 1081 [77%] women), 1220 (87%) completed the trial. Mean weight loss at 24 months was -4.4 kg (95% CI, -5.5 to -3.4 kg) in the in-clinic group intervention, -3.9 kg (95% CI, -5.0 to -2.9 kg) in the telephone group intervention, and -2.6 kg (95% CI, -3.6 to -1.5 kg) in the in-clinic individual intervention. Compared with the in-clinic individual intervention, the mean difference in weight change was -1.9 kg (97.5% CI, -3.5 to -0.2 kg; P = .01) for the in-clinic group intervention and -1.4 kg (97.5% CI, -3.0 to 0.3 kg; P = .06) for the telephone group intervention.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with obesity in rural primary care clinics, in-clinic group visits but not telephone-based group visits, compared with in-clinic individual visits, resulted in statistically significantly greater weight loss at 24 months. However, the differences were small in magnitude and of uncertain clinical importance.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient-provider agreement on whether weight and related behaviors were discussed during routine visits. DESIGN:Post-visit survey assessments of patients and providers. PARTICIPANTS:Obese patients make up the majority of all patients seen in primary care (PC). The patients and physicians were recruited at the time of PC visits. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Percent patient-physician agreement and patient, provider and practice characteristics associated with agreement. Patients (456) and physicians (30) agreed about whether or not they discussed weight, physical activity (PA), and diet for 61% of office visits. There was disagreement on one of the items (weight, PA, or diet) for 23% of office visits, and for 2 or more of the items for 16% of the visits. Agreement was relatively greater for discussing weight than for discussing diet or physical activity. Physicians reported discussing weight issues more often than did patients. Overall patient-physician agreement was 0.51-0.59 (weighted Kappa statistic). In a multivariate analyses of factors associated with patient-physician agreement, health insurance (odds ratio [OR]=3.67, p value= 0.002), physician description of patient weight status (OR=2.27, p value=0.002), patient report of how weight relates to health (OR=1.70, p value=0.04), and female patient gender (OR=1.62, p=value=0.02) were significantly related to agreement. CONCLUSIONS:Patients and providers disagreed about whether or not weight issues were discussed in a large number of primary care encounters in this study. Physicians may be able to improve care for their obese patients by focusing discussions on specific details of diet and physical activity behaviors, and by clarifying that patients perceive weight-related information has been shared.

Background: Although research participants are generally interested in receiving results from studies in which they participate, health researchers rarely communicate study findings to participants. The present study was designed to provide opportunity for a broad group of health researchers to describe their experiences and concerns related to sharing results (i.e. aggregate study findings) with research participants. Methods: We used a mixed-methods concurrent triangulation design, relying on an online survey to capture health researchers' experiences, perceptions and barriers related to sharing study results with participants. Respondents were health researchers who conduct research that includes the consent of human subjects and hold a current appointment at an accredited academic medical institution within the United States. For quantitative data, the analytic strategy focused on item-level descriptive analyses. For the qualitative data, analyses focused on a priori themes and emergent subthemes. Results: Respondents were 414 researchers from 44 academic medical institutions; 64.5% reported that results should always be shared with participants, yet 60.8% of respondents could identify studies in which they had a leadership role where results were not shared. Emergent subthemes from researchers' reasons why results should be shared included participant ownership of findings and benefits of results sharing to science. Reasons for not sharing included concerns related to participants' health literacy and participants' lack of desire for results. Across all respondents who described barriers to results sharing, the majority described logistical barriers. Conclusions: Study findings contribute to the literature by documenting researchers' perspectives and experiences about sharing results with research participants, which can inform efforts to improve results sharing. Most respondents indicated that health research results should always be shared with participants, although the extent to which many respondents described barriers to results sharing as well as reported reasons not to share results suggests difficulties with a one-size-fits-all approach to improving results sharing.