What interventions are effective and cost-effective for supporting the health and well-being of people with obesity on healthcare waiting lists? A Rapid Review

1.1 Who is this review for?

This rapid review was conducted as part of the Health and Care Research Wales Evidence Centre Work Programme. The question was proposed by Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board Weight Management Service to address the need for feasible, low-resource interventions that could support individuals with obesity on waiting lists for tier 3 services, helping to prevent deterioration in health and well-being during prolonged waiting periods.

1.2 Background and purpose of this review

Prevalence of obesity (body mass index [BMI] of ≥30kg/m²) has risen rapidly in recent decades and is considered one of the most significant public health challenges worldwide (Watkins, 2024). In Wales, latest data estimates that 25% of adults aged 16 and over are living with obesity (Watkins, 2024). By 2035, it is projected that 11% of the Welsh population will have severe obesity (BMI ≥40kg/m²), compared to 8% in England, and 5% in Scotland (Keaver et al, 2020). Currently the UK utilises a four-tier pathway for the management of services to support adults with overweight (BMI 25 – 29.9kg/m²) and obesity to lose weight. In Wales specifically, the All-Wales Weight Management Pathway sets out the key elements and principles underpinning the delivery of weight management services. Tier 1 includes brief advice and self-directed materials for overweight adults, Tier 2 includes multicomponent interventions for adults with obesity, Tier 3 includes specialist multi-disciplinary services for adults with severe obesity, and Tier 4 involve specialist surgical services (Welsh Government, 2021).

Obesity prevalence within the Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board area (29% of adults) is higher than the national average (StatsWales, 2023) however, a weight management service operating at tiers 1 to 4 has only been available in the area since February 2023 (Life Sciences Hwb, 2023). Currently, there is a significant demand for tier 3 services, with individuals waiting between three and five years to access these services across parts of Wales (Wales NHS Confederation, 2024). During these prolonged waits, individuals with severe obesity face considerable risk of health deterioration. Due to the high demand on the service leading to extended wait times, and the lack of resources to increase capacity, there is an urgent need for effective interim support strategies for people with severe obesity on waiting lists for tier 3 weight management services in order to prevent their health and well-being deteriorating and promote ‘waiting well’.

Stakeholders highlighted the need for scalable strategies that fit within current resource constraints to support people awaiting tier 3 services to ‘wait well’ and prevent deterioration in health and well-being during this period. Preliminary scoping work conducted for this rapid review identified little secondary or primary research specifically focused on evaluating interventions to support people on waiting lists to attend tier 3 multi-disciplinary services.

Consequently, the focus of this rapid review has been broadened to identify primary research on interventions that could potentially support adults with obesity on any healthcare waiting list.

2.1 Overview of the Evidence Base

The methods and eligibility criteria for the review are presented in Section 5. Eligibility was restricted to comparative primary studies and economic evaluations assessing the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of interventions aimed at supporting adults with obesity on any waiting list (see section 5.1 for full eligibility criteria). Seven studies were eligible for inclusion. All studies investigated interventions designed to support patients with obesity on surgical waiting lists. None of the studies addressed the stakeholders initial research question which was to support people waiting for tier 3 obesity weight management services.

Two studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) while the remaining five studies included two uncontrolled before and after studies, one pilot uncontrolled before and after study, one before and after study that also utilised the comparator usual care group from a previous study, and one non-randomised controlled trial. No economic evaluations were identified. Studies were conducted in a range of countries, including Canada (n=2), Turkey (n=2), Australia (n=1), Germany (n=1), Spain (n=1), and were published between 2017 and 2024. Sample sizes across the studies ranged from six to 305, with six of the seven studies reporting a sample size less than 35. Intervention duration ranged from six-weeks to six-months. Six studies included people with severe obesity (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m² or ≥ 35 kg/m² with comorbidities) who were on a waiting list for bariatric surgery (n=5) or either bariatric or metabolic surgery (n=1). The final study included people with obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m²) on waiting lists for any elective surgery.

Four studies evaluated the effectiveness of interventions, while three focused on assessing their feasibility of implementation. All participants were recruited from surgical waiting lists, either through referral by surgical teams (n=3) or direct contact from researchers (n=1), and three studies did not specify their recruitment methods. The interventions aimed to prepare participants for surgery by targeting improvements in quality of life, physiological, anthropometric, behavioural, functional, or mental health outcomes. In four studies, participants in the intervention group received an intervention in combination with usual care, and outcomes were compared to a control group who also received the usual care component. In these three studies, the usual care component was physical activity counselling (n=2) or nutritional and psychological counselling (n=1). One study compared the effectiveness of a group-based preoperative educational intervention delivered via teleconferencing to an in-person intervention. This study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, when teleconferencing became an alternative to in-person meetings. In the remaining three studies, participants received an intervention, no usual care component was described and outcomes were compared before and after the intervention.

Interventions were based on exercise (n=4), physical activity counselling (n=1), group-based preoperative educational (n=1) and text message-based prehabilitation (n=1). Most interventions were delivered face-to-face or with significant direct healthcare professional input, suggesting a potential mismatch with the need for scalable, low-resource solutions.

Notably, six interventions required direct input from healthcare professionals, with delivery methods including remote teleconferencing (n=2), face-to-face sessions (n=3), and one study that compared both approaches, often conducted in settings like hospitals and university physiotherapy departments. One intervention was delivered through text messaging, where patients received four-weekly text message prompts encouraging healthy behaviours based on Australian physical activity and nutrition guidelines. Exercise interventions frequently required specialist equipment, which, in the case of home-based interventions, was provided to participants along with internet connectivity installation or upgrades where appropriate for use during the study period, adding to the resource demands. Remote interventions conducted via videoconferencing or telehealth required participants to have access to digital devices, internet connectivity, and the necessary skills to use these technologies. Greater detail of the specific interventions being investigated is shown in Table 1.

Included studies reported a variety of outcomes that were related to aspects of health and well-being. Commonly reported outcomes included quality of life (n=6) and anthropometric measures such as weight, BMI, fat mass, and fat-free mass (n=5). Mental health measures, including anxiety and depression, were reported in two studies, while fatigue (n=2), stress (n=1), and functional capacity (n=1) were less frequently assessed.

The methodological quality of included studies was assessed in a structured way using established and validated critical appraisal tools for RCTs (Barker et al, 2023) or quasi-experimental studies (Barker et al, 2024). The approach used is reported in more detail in Section 5. All studies had some risk of bias, with quasi-experimental studies rated as low quality (n=5) and RCTs as moderate (n=1) and low (n=1) quality. The moderate quality RCT assessed a Core Stabilisation Exercise Program plus physical activity counselling (usual care), compared with physical activity counselling alone (Arman et al, 2021). A common issue in six studies was the lack of appropriate statistical analysis, including the absence of power calculations and ineffective statistical methods for assessing intervention effectiveness. Three before and after studies did not include control groups and participant outcomes were assessed and comparisons were made before and after the intervention. One RCT lacked blinding, and the other raised concerns about allocation concealment, group similarity at baseline, measurement reliability, and follow-up reporting. Further details of the quality of individual studies are provided in Section 6.3.

A summary of the findings of the effectiveness of each intervention type is reported in the next section. Our certainty (or confidence) in the overall body of evidence on which the findings were based for each outcome measure was assessed according to: the relevance of the available evidence in addressing the review question (directness), the amount and quality of the evidence, the magnitude and direction of effects, similarity of the studies and consistency in the findings (in whether they favour the intervention or control). This information was used to classify the body of evidence for each outcome into one of four levels of certainty: high, moderate, low, and very low. These ratings indicate the degree of confidence we have in the findings, with a high rating indicating, that having assessed the potential problems with the available evidence we are very confident that the summary findings represent the true value of the intervention effect, whilst a very low rating indicates that we have very little confidence that our summary findings represents the true underlying intervention effect. The results of this assessment for the main outcomes, quality of life and mental well-being (anxiety or depression) are provided in Table 2.

2.2 Effectiveness of exercise interventions

Four studies (Arman et al, 2021; Baillot et al, 2017; Marc-Hernández et al, 2019; Tokgoz et al, 2022) investigated the effects or feasibility of exercise interventions on the health and well-being of patients on waiting lists for bariatric surgery. The types of exercise interventions varied, including combined resistance and endurance programmes (Baillot et al, 2017; Marc-Hernández et al, 2019), a core stability exercise programme (Arman et al, 2021), and aerobic dance-based exercise (Tokgoz et al, 2022). Participants received the exercise intervention in addition to usual care in all four studies. The studies included two RCTs (Arman et al, 2021; Tokgoz et al, 2022), one non-randomised controlled trial (Marc-Hernández et al, 2019) and one before and after study with comparator group from a previous study (Baillot et al, 2017;). Overall, the evidence provided by these studies was of very low certainty.

2.3 Effectiveness of text message-based prehabilitation interventions

One study (Kulinski and Smith 2020) examined the feasibility of implementing of a text message-based prehabilitation intervention on patients with obesity awaiting elective surgery. This study was a before and after pilot study conducted in Australia. This study was judged to be of low quality and only provided descriptive analysis of outcomes relevant to this rapid review.

2.4 Effectiveness of group-based preoperative educational interventions

One study (Lau et al., 2024) examined the impact of a group-based educational intervention on mental health outcomes, comparing videoconferencing and face-to-face delivery modes of delivery. This low quality, before and after study conducted in Germany provided very low certainty evidence for the effectiveness of group-based preoperative educational interventions.

2.5 Effectiveness of physical activity counselling interventions

One study (Baillot et al., 2024) evaluated the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of a telehealth-based physical activity counselling intervention designed to increase moderate-to-vigorous physical activity in adults awaiting metabolic or bariatric surgery. This low quality, before and after study was conducted in Canada. The study’s limited statistical analysis undermines the precision and clarity of the findings, making the effectiveness of the intervention unclear.

3.1 Summary of the findings

This rapid review aimed to identify and synthesise the evidence for the effectiveness of interventions to support the health and well-being of people with obesity on waiting lists, with a focus on identifying practical and resource-efficient interventions that can be implemented within the current healthcare constraints of tier 3 weight management services in Wales.

Seven primary studies were identified. These assessed the effectiveness or feasibility of implementing exercise, physical activity counselling, education or text messaging-based interventions. The findings of these studies indicated that these interventions can improve quality of life, anxiety, stress and depressive symptoms, as well as anthropometric measures (body weight, BMI, fat mass, fat-free mass) of patients awaiting surgery. However, the evidence supporting these findings was deemed to be of very low certainty.

Four studies investigating exercise interventions were identified, while the remaining intervention types were reliant on findings from a single study. Although exercise interventions demonstrated positive results for improving quality of life, interventions varied greatly in terms of 1) exercise type (e.g, a Core Stability Exercise Programme and an aerobic based dance intervention), 2) mode of delivery (e.g, supervised in-person or remote delivery via teleconferencing), 3) study design and aim (e.g, RCTs, non-RCTs and uncontrolled studies, and one study assessed the feasibility of implementing an intervention), and 4) quality of life outcomes and tools used to assess them. This, as well as the studies being predominantly of low methodological quality, means that we are not confident in the evidence.

The stakeholders of this rapid review aimed to use findings to inform support strategies for people with obesity on waiting lists for tier 3 weight management services. However, it is likely that the type of interventions assessed in the included studies would not be feasible for implementation within this context. The interventions were resource-intensive and most were delivered in-person, which contrasts with our stakeholder need for brief and low-resource solutions that are scalable to a large number of patients waiting for treatment. One study (Kulinski and Smith 2020) assessed an automated text message-based prehabilitation intervention, which may be better suited to weight management service waiting list constraints; however, this study assessed feasibility of implementation, not effectiveness.

3.2 Strengths and limitations of the available evidence

The evidence included in this rapid review was impacted by significant methodological limitations. Most studies were rated as low quality due to not including a control group, absence of blinding in RCTs, and inadequate statistical analysis to support the validity of the findings. These issues contributed to a very low certainty of evidence, which makes it challenging to draw robust conclusions about the effectiveness of the interventions evaluated. Furthermore, three studies assessed the feasibility of an intervention, so effectiveness could not be determined.

Several key evidence gaps further limit the applicability of the findings to the stakeholder context. Firstly, there were no UK-based studies included in the review, and the geographic scope of the studies may affect the generalisability of the results, particularly given differences in healthcare systems, patient demographics, and service availability.

Additionally, most of the included studies focused on individuals on waiting lists for bariatric or metabolic surgery, which does not fully align with a population that is of direct relevance to the stakeholders i.e. people with obesity waiting for tier 3 services. In the UK, patients undergoing bariatric surgery are typically at tier 4 in the weight management pathway and have usually received tier 3 treatment prior to referral for surgery. Therefore, these patients are less representative of the population of primary interest to stakeholders. Additionally, only one study specifically targeted the stabilisation and improvement of mental health during the waiting period, revealing a significant gap in evidence.

We didn’t identify any relevant economic evaluations and no study included an assessment of the cost-effectiveness of interventions, an essential factor for determining the practicality of implementing these interventions within constrained healthcare budgets.

The review did not find any studies that could be feasibly and scalably implemented within current healthcare constraints faced by obesity weight management services. The reliance of technologies (e.g, laptops for videoconferencing) in some interventions also raises equity concerns, as digitally excluding participants—particularly those without reliable internet access, digital devices, or the necessary digital literacy—could disproportionately impact vulnerable groups who are already at a disadvantage in accessing healthcare services. These barriers could limit the reach and effectiveness of such interventions, undermining their potential impact.

3.3 Strengths and limitations of this Rapid Review

The methods used for this rapid review were based on an abbreviated systematic review approach, following established guidelines in an attempt to capture all relevant publications with minimal risk of bias in a timely manner. Included studies were systematically identified through an extensive search of electronic databases and grey literature.

However, the rapid review faced notable limitations. During preliminary work, no evidence directly addressing the stakeholders’ original question was identified. As a result, the review’s scope was broadened to capture a wider range of studies. This adjustment, while necessary to ensure potentially relevant research was identified, led to the inclusion of studies of interventions that did not directly address the initial research question. The broadened scope also resulted in the inclusion of studies that could not be feasibly or scalably implemented within current healthcare constraints experienced by stakeholders and were not specifically focused on the population of interest—individuals with obesity on waiting lists for tier 3 weight management services.

Additionally, poor reporting of results in several studies made it challenging to interpret findings accurately. Despite efforts to ensure a robust synthesis and consistency checks at each stage of the review, these reporting issues affected the overall clarity and applicability of the evidence.

3.4 Implications for policy and practice

Although we have little confidence in the evidence, there is more evidence of better quality (including two RCTs and two controlled studies) that suggest exercise interventions may support the quality of life of people with obesity waiting for surgery, with no studies reporting a decline in quality of life. This evidence could be cautiously considered to inform interventions in practice but those designing interventions should be mindful of the population and setting in which they are applied.

The findings of this rapid review highlight the need for increased resource allocation to conduct and rigorously evaluate robust studies and economic evaluations investigating waiting list interventions for individuals with obesity. A particular focus should be on UK-based interventions for those awaiting weight management services. When designing interventions decision makers should consider both the feasibility to implement and scalability within the current healthcare resource constraints.

Emerging approaches in the UK show a shift towards digital health solutions to improve the availability of weight management support. This may provide an alternative option for those on waiting lists as well as people in areas where multidisciplinary weight management services are not yet provided. The National Institute for Health Excellence (NICE, 2023) Health Technology Evaluation (HTE14) of digital technologies highlights the potential of applications to deliver multidisciplinary weight-management services and prescribe and/ or monitor weight-management medicine for adults with obesity. These digital platforms could support increased capacity, or reduced demand on clinician time as well as cutting wait times. When considering digital solutions, NICE (HTE14) stresses the importance of evaluating these digital interventions to ensure they are safe, effective, and accessible. While some patients may prefer to access services remotely via digital technologies, it is imperative that services also consider and address the risk of digital exclusion, particularly for those who may need additional support. For example, those at greatest risk of digital exclusion may suffer from a visual, hearing or cognitive impairment, reduced manual dexterity, a learning disability or being unable to read English (NICE, 2023). Furthermore, considering the impact of a shift to digital solutions on those with limited access to technology or low digital literacy is crucial to prevent widening health inequalities.

3.5 Implications for future research

Future research should prioritise the development and evaluation of brief, scalable interventions tailored to low-resource settings, specifically designed to support patients to ‘wait well’ without further health deterioration while on waiting lists for tier 3 services. The current evidence base lacks practical solutions that directly address the resource constraints faced by weight management services, highlighting the need for studies that develop and test interventions which are both effective and feasible within these contexts.

Research efforts should focus on exploring digital health solutions, remote support, and minimal contact models that minimise the need for specialist equipment and extensive healthcare professional input and promote equity, including considerations for those at risk of digital exclusion. These approaches could provide scalable options that better meet the needs of healthcare providers and patients in low-resource settings. Additionally, future research should focus on interventions that address the specific needs of individuals on waiting lists for tier 3 weight management services, emphasising the development of interventions that balance effectiveness with feasibility and accessibility. It is crucial that future studies undertake rigorous evaluations, including cost-effectiveness analyses, to determine the clinical and financial viability of interventions. Understanding the economic impact of implementing these interventions will help stakeholders make informed decisions about adopting these solutions.

3.6 Economic considerations*

• There is a lack economic evidence on the impact of implementing interventions for supporting the health and well-being of people with obesity on healthcare waiting lists.

• Obesity is a considerable and prevalent public health issue in Wales that incurs significant economic cost. Obesity costs NHS Wales £73 million per annum (Welsh Government, 2011). If rates of overweight and obesity continue to rise in line with recent trends, by 2050, they will cost NHS Wales £465 million per year, with a cost to the wider society and economy of £2.4 billion (Public Health Wales, 2016).

Obesity and overweight can impact one’s ability to enter and remain in work. A press release by the Health Secretary from October 2024 suggested illnesses caused by obesity cause people to take an extra four sick days a year on average (The Telegraph, 2024). Inability to access management services and support while awaiting services may contribute to such absenteeism.