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 =============================================================================================================================================================== * Toby Ayres * Jordan Everitt * Alesha Wale * Chukwudi Okolie * Amy Fox-McNally * Helen Morgan * Hannah Shaw * Jacob Davies * Rhiannon Tudor Edwards * Adrian Edwards * Alison Copper * Ruth Lewis ## Abstract Currently, there is a significant demand for tier 3 weight management services, with individuals waiting between three and five years to access these services in parts of Wales. This rapid review aimed to identify and synthesise the evidence for the effectiveness of strategies for supporting the health and well-being of individuals with obesity on such waiting lists, with a focus on practical and resource-efficient interventions that can be implemented within current healthcare constraints. Seven studies were included, and these were published between 2017 and 2024. Studies were conducted in a range of countries, and no relevant UK based study was identified. Studies investigated exercise, physical activity counselling, education and text message-based prehabilitation interventions in people awaiting surgery. This review did not identify any studies assessing the effectiveness of interventions that could be feasibly implemented or scaled up within the resource limitations of typical tier 3 weight management services in Wales. Most studies required significant resource and input from healthcare professionals, and were delivered in-person at healthcare settings or remotely via teleconferencing. All studies assessed patients with obesity on a waiting list for surgery, but none included a patient population that matched those on waiting lists for tier 3 weight management services in Wales. None of the studies evaluated the cost-effectiveness of interventions. Overall, we are not confident in the evidence. Most studies were of low quality, with significant methodological and reporting limitations affecting the reliability of their findings. Although we have little confidence in the evidence, there is some evidence from four studies, that suggest exercise interventions may support the quality of life and anthropometric measures of people with obesity waiting for surgery. 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. Other interventions, including text message-based prehabilitation interventions, preoperative educational interventions and physical activity counselling interventions were reliant on findings from single low-quality studies. Some of these interventions showed improvements for participant’s quality of life, mental well-being and anthropometric measures. In relation to obesity weight management services, allocation of resources should allow for conducting and evaluating robust studies and economic evaluations investigating interventions for those awaiting obesity weight management services. Given the current healthcare resource constraints, it may be beneficial to consider the feasibility and scalability of interventions during their design. ## 1. BACKGROUND ### 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. RESULTS ### 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. View this table: [Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/07/2024.11.07.24316892/T1) Table 1: Summary of interventions 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. View this table: [Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/07/2024.11.07.24316892/T2) Table 2: Summary of the evidence ### 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. #### Quality of life outcomes * Arman et al (2021) assessed the impact of a supervised core stability exercise programme in people with obesity awaiting bariatric surgery. Both the intervention group and control group received physical activity counselling as part of usual care. After the eight-week intervention, a statistically significant difference in Obesity Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (OSQOL) scores were observed in both groups and between-groups (p=0.001). The intervention significantly improved their OSQOL scores (ES= 0.41, p=0.005), whereas the control group significantly worsened (ES= −0.48, p=0.011). * Two studies explored the effectiveness of supervised resistance and endurance exercise interventions in people with obesity awaiting bariatric surgery (Baillot et al, 2017; Marc-Hernández et al, 2019). Baillot et al (2017) assessed the feasibility of implementing a home-based videoconferencing intervention and found no significant difference in weight-related quality of life (WRQOL) scores compared to usual care (p≥0.4) or an in-person intervention (p=0.9) group from a previous study (descriptive statistics to indicate the direction of effect were not reported). Marc-Hernández et al (2019) used the 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) questionnaire to assess the impact of a supervised in-person intervention. While the intervention group increased mean scores in all domains, significant between-group differences in favour of the intervention group were reported for only two of eight scales which included: physical functioning (p=0.026), and general health perception (p=0.005), a significant difference was apparent for the physical component summary (p=0.046) as well. * A group-based aerobic dance intervention (Tokgoz et al, 2022) significantly improved Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite (IWQOL-Lite) scores in people with morbid obesity awaiting bariatric surgery. The intervention group improved their scores immediately post-intervention (p>0.005), whereas control group scores significantly worsened following eight-weeks of physical activity counselling. The improvement in scores shown in the intervention group were greater than that of the control group post-intervention (mean difference: −14.46 ± 22.08 vs 1.64 ± 22.08, p=0.007). #### Anthropometric outcomes * Arman et al (2021) measured the effect of the intervention on a range of body composition measures including body weight, BMI, fat mass and fat free mass. No significant differences were reported for either group following the programme (p > 0.05). * Baillot et al (2017) found no significant differences in BMI or fat mass in participants undergoing the videoconferencing intervention compared to the usual care or in-person programme (p>0.2). * Tokgoz et al (2022) reported no significant between-group differences for body weight, BMI or fat mass post-intervention (p>0.05). * Results reported by Marc-Hernández et al (2019) showed the intervention group obtained significant reductions in all anthropometric and body composition variables evaluated total weight (−7.3 ± 4.1 kg, p<0.01), BMI (− 2.6 ± 1.5, p=0.001), fat mass (−7.1 ± 4.7 kg, p <0.01), and waist circumference (−5.3 ± 2.1 cm, p<0.01) except in the fat-free mass (kg), which remained constant. In addition, all variables excluding fat-free mass (kg), showed significant reductions that were superior to the control group. #### Functional outcomes * Arman et al (2021) found that the intervention group (IG) significantly improved their 6-Min Walk Test (MWT)-distance values after eight weeks (MD= 146 ± 42.33 [95% CI: 115.71 to 176.28]). The control group 6-MWT-distance values significantly worsened after eight-weeks (MD= −36.63 ± 50.91 [95% CI:-70.83 to −2.43]). There was a statistically significant difference in 6 MWT-distance scores between the groups after the programme in favour of the exercise group (p<0.05). Cohen’s d indicated on all scores of 6 MWT-distance ranged from 0.03 to - 0.78 for the exercise group and - 0.05 to 0.26 for the control group. * Tokgoz et al (2022) measured fatigue using the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), and reported significant improvements from baseline to post intervention. These improvements were significantly greater than the control group (MD= −2.89 ± −1.13 vs −0.49 ± 1.26, p=0.001). #### Bottom line results for exercise interventions Overall, our certainty in the findings that exercise interventions are effective in improving the quality of life of people with obesity awaiting surgery is very low (Table 2). The evidence base was limited, with only four relevant studies identified three of which were rated as low methodological quality and one study assessed the feasibility of implementing their intervention. The one moderate quality RCT reported statistical improvements in quality of life following exercise interventions. However, the lack of blinding of participants, outcome assessors and those delivering the treatment limited the strength of these findings. The differences in study design, intervention characteristics such as exercise type, and mode of delivery among these studies limit our confidence in the findings. Studies also used a variety of measurement tools to assess quality of life outcomes, which complicates comparisons and further limits certainty. Evidence for the impact of exercise on anthropometric measures, such as body weight and BMI varied, with a majority of studies showing no significant effect of the intervention. There is also very little evidence supporting improvements in functional outcomes. ### 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. #### Quality of life outcomes * Kulinski and Smith (2020) found that 61% (n=11) of participants reported that their overall health score, as indicated by the quality of life EQ-5D-3L visual analogue scale improved after completing the programme. Twenty-seven percent (n=5) of participants reported improved general health-related quality of life. #### Anthropometric outcomes * Kulinski and Smith (2020) reported that 40% (n=8) of participants lost at least 2 kg over the course of the intervention. Those who did lose weight lost a mean of 6 kg over six months (range 2– 12 kg), with a mean weight loss of 1.7 kg for the entire cohort. #### Bottom line results for text message-based prehabilitation interventions The evidence for the effectiveness of text message-based prehabilitation interventions for improving quality of life, weight is of very low certainty, is reliant on a single low-quality study that lacked appropriate statistical analysis and reporting. Due to the significant methodological limitations and reliance on a single feasibility study, the effectiveness of this intervention remains unclear. ### 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. #### Mental well-being outcomes * Anxiety and depression scores, measured using the GAD-7 and PHQ-9 questionnaires respectively, were significantly improved following completion of the study (anxiety: –1.1 units ± 4.6, z = −3.914, p<0.001; depression: –0.9 units ± 4.6, z = –3.771, p<0.001). Participants also significantly reduced perceived stress scores (PSQ-20), overall stress reduced between by 4.6 ± 15.6 points (z = –4.976, p<0.001). In particular, the subscale “worries” showed an average improvement of –7.9 ± 22.7 points (z = –5.761, p<0.001). A mean reduction of five points was achieved for the subscale “tension” (z = –4.237, p<0.001) and for the subscale “demands” (z = −4.944, p<0.001). There were no significant changes on the “joy” subscale. There were no interaction effects between the two subgroups indicating that the mode of delivery (face-to-face vs. videoconference) did not significantly influence outcomes. #### Quality of life outcomes * There was no significant change in the physical component of the SF-12 however, there was a trend toward improvement in the mental component of quality of life, with a mean increase of 2.3 points ± 10.8 (z = 3.022, p=0.003). #### Anthropometric outcomes * No significant differences in weight or BMI were reported following completion of the intervention (weight: −0.3 kg ± 8.7, z = −0.561, p=0.575; BMI: −0.1 units, ± 3.1, z= - 0.277, p=0.782). #### Bottom line results for group-based preoperative educational interventions The evidence for group-based educational interventions, comparing videoconferencing and face-to-face delivery modes, is of very low certainty, with findings from a single low-quality study. Results for both interventions indicate improvements in mental well-being outcomes, including anxiety, depression, and stress reduction. However, there were no significant changes in quality of life, with only a trend towards improvement in the mental component, and no significant changes in the physical component. The interventions showed no effect on anthropometric outcomes, such as weight or BMI. The mode of delivery (face-to-face vs. videoconference) did not significantly influence the results. ### 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. #### Mental well-being and quality of life outcomes Baillot et al (2024) found at least one minimally important difference (improvement in RAND-36 score > 25% post-intervention) for psychosocial outcomes (anxiety and depressive symptoms, quality of life) was reached by 90.9% (n=10) of participants during and after the intervention. This low-quality study does not report inferential statistics for these outcomes; therefore, the statistical significance is unclear. #### Bottom line results for physical activity counselling interventions The evidence for the effectiveness of physical activity counselling interventions is of very low certainty and is limited to a single low quality feasibility study. While a high proportion of participants showed improvements in some mental well-being and quality of life domains, the poor reporting restricts the ability to gauge the true effectiveness of the intervention. The results suggest potential benefits in improving psychosocial outcomes, but the overall evidence is very low certainty and inconclusive. ## 3. DISCUSSION ### 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. ## Data Availability All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors ## Abbreviations BMI : Body Mass Index CI : Confidence interval COVID-19 : Coronavirus disease CSEP : core stabilisation exercise program EG : Exercise group ES : Effect size EQ-5D-3L : EuroQol-5 dimension 3-level questionnaire EWL : Excess weight loss FACIT-F : Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy – Fatigue FSS : Fatigue Severity Scale GAD-7 : Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire - 7 GRADE : Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations HTE : Health technology evaluation ICTRP : International Clinical Trials Registry Platform IWQOL-Lite : Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite JBI : Johanna Briggs Institute Kg : Kilograms MD : Mean difference MWT : Minute walk test MVPA : moderate-to-vigorous physical activity NICE : National Institute for Health and Care Excellence OECD : Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OSQOL : Obesity Specific Quality of Life PAC : physical activity counselling PHQ-9 : Patient Health Questionnaire - 9 PICO : Population, intervention, comparator, outcome PMOABS : people with morbid obesity awaiting bariatric surgery PRISMA : Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses PSADBE : Pre-surgical aerobic dance-based exercise PSQ-20 : Perceived Stress Questionnaire - 20 PreSET : Pre-Surgical Exercise Training intervention QoL : Quality of Life RCT : Randomised controlled trial SD : Standard deviation SF-12 : 12-Item Short Form Survey SF-36 : 36-Item Short Form Survey TelePreSET : Telehealth Pre-Surgical Exercise Training intervention TELE-BariACTIV : TELEhealth BARIatric behavioural intervention UK : United Kingdom WRQOL : weight-related quality of life ## RAPID REVIEW METHODS ### 5.1 Eligibility criteria We searched for primary sources to answer the review question: what interventions are effective and cost-effective for supporting the health and well-being of people with obesity on healthcare waiting lists? View this table: [Table 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/07/2024.11.07.24316892/T3) Table 3: Eligibility Criteria ### 5.2 Literature search A search was conducted of the electronic bibliographic databases: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL Plus with Full Text. The search strategy used for Medline is available in appendix 1. A search for ongoing and completed trials was conducted in Clinicaltrials.gov, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Citation tracking from sources identified during the preliminary stages was also undertaken, as well searching reference lists of potentially relevant reports previously conducted by the review team. All searches were conducted between 22/07/2024 and 23/07/2024. Terms used to cover the population and intervention elements of the eligibility criteria included those to describe obesity and phrase variations to describe waiting lists or waiting for support. Searches were limited to studies published after 2010, the year that the All-Wales Obesity Pathway was introduced, and to those published in the English language. ### 5.3 Reference management All citations retrieved from the database searches were imported or entered manually into EndNote and duplicates removed by a single reviewer. The citations that remained were exported and imported to the systematic reviewing platform Rayyan for study selection. ### 5.4 Study selection process All titles and abstract were screened independently in duplicate with disagreements settled by discussion and consensus within the review team. This process was repeated for screening records at full-text. ### 5.5 Data extraction Data extracted was conducted by a single reviewer and was consistency checked by a second reviewer. Information extracted includes: * Citation Study design * Intervention * Comparator * Study aim * Data collection methods and dates * Outcomes reported * Sample size * Participants * Setting * Key findings * Observations/Notes ### 5.6 Study design classification The included studies were classified as quasi-experimental studies or RCTs. No economic evaluations were included following the study selection process. ### 5.7 Quality appraisal The JBI critical appraisal checklists for quasi-experimental studies (Barker et al, 2024) and RCTs (Barker et al, 2023) were used to assess the methodological quality of each included study. These checklists are not designed to assign an overall score to each study. Quality assessment was undertaken in duplicate by two independent reviewers. Any discrepancies were discussed and resolved between reviewers. The quality assessment of individual studies can be seen in section 6.3. ### 5.8 Synthesis Data was synthesised narratively to provide a collective interpretation of the evidence. ### 5.9 Assessment of body of evidence An assessment of the overall body of evidence was made based on the relevance of the available evidence in addressing the review question, the amount and quality of the evidence, the magnitude and direction of effects, and consistency in the findings. This information is provided for the main outcomes (quality of life and mental well-being) in Table 2, and was used to classify the body of evidence for each outcome as: Very low certainty; Low certainty; Moderate certainty; and High certainty. ## EVIDENCE ### 6.1 Search results and study selection A visual representation of the flow of studies throughout the review can be found in Figure 1. A total of 3,299 records were retrieved via the searches and, 1,953 records remained following deduplication. A total of 24 articles were screened at full text.. Seven studies were included in the rapid review. Of which, two studies were RCTs, and five were quasi-experimental, including one non-randomised controlled trial, a before and after study that used comparator groups from a previous study, two uncontrolled before and after studies, and one uncontrolled pilot before and after study. In order to identify studies relevant to the context of weight management services waiting lists, intervention type will be categorised and method of delivery will be described. Relevant delivery methods include but will not be limited to: * Digital * Remote * Self-directed * Telephone * Letters/postal * Brief interventions ![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/11/07/2024.11.07.24316892/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/07/2024.11.07.24316892/F1) Figure 1. PRSIMA flow diagram ### 6.2 Data extraction View this table: [Table 4:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/07/2024.11.07.24316892/T4) Table 4: Summary of included studies ### 6.3 Quality appraisal View this table: [Table 5:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/07/2024.11.07.24316892/T5) Table 5: Quality appraisal results for quasi-experimental studies View this table: [Table 6:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/07/2024.11.07.24316892/T6) Table 6: Quality appraisal results for randomised controlled trials ### 6.4 Information available on request The following are available on request: protocol; search strategies. ## ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ### 7.1 Conflicts of interest The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest to report. ### 7.2 Acknowledgements The Public Health Wales team would like to thank Enzo Battista-Dowds, Maria Cole, Megan Elliot, Praveena Pemmasani and Libby Humphries for their time, expertise and contributions during stakeholder meetings, in guiding the focus of the review and interpretation of the findings. ## APPENDIX ### APPENDIX 1 Ovid MEDLINE(R) ALL <1946 to July 17, 2024> 1. (obese or obesity).ti,ab. 394914 2. Obesity/ or Obesity, Abdominal/ or Obesity, Morbid/ 255657 3. 1 or 2 449482 4. (awaiting or waitlist* or “wait* list*” or backlog* or (wait* adj3 (support* or interven* or assist* or program* or service* or treat* or surg* or refer* or specialist* or consult* or clinic* or care or appointment* or procedure* or therapy or therapeutic or team* or session* or (weight adj3 manag*) or (obesity adj3 manag*)))).ti,ab. 44687 5. Waiting Lists/ or Case Management/ or Patient Care Management/ or Critical Pathways/ 37247 6. “Referral and Consultation”/ and (Disease Management/ or Obesity Management/) 569 7. 4 or 5 or 6 74724 8. 3 and 7 1348 9. limit 8 to (english language and yr=“2010 -Current”) 1064 10. 9 not (case reports or comment or editorial or letter).pt. 1028 ## Footnotes * **Funding statement:** The authors and their Institutions were funded for this work by the Health and Care Research Wales Evidence Centre, itself funded by Health and Care Research Wales on behalf of Welsh Government. * * This section has been completed by the Centre for Health Economics & Medicines Evaluation (CHEME), Bangor University * Received November 7, 2024. * Revision received November 7, 2024. * Accepted November 7, 2024. * © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/) ## 4. REFERENCES 1. Arman, N., et al. (2021). “The effects of core stabilization exercise program in obese people awaiting bariatric surgery: A randomized controlled study.” Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice 43: 101342. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33684639&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F07%2F2024.11.07.24316892.atom) 2. Baillot, A., et al. (2024). “Acceptability and Feasibility of the Telehealth Bariatric Behavioral Intervention to Increase Physical Activity Before Bariatric Surgery: A Single-Case Experimental Study (Part I).” Obesity Surgery 34(5): 1639–1652. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=38483742&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F07%2F2024.11.07.24316892.atom) 3. Baillot, A., et al. (2017). “Feasibility and effect of in-home physical exercise training delivered via telehealth before bariatric surgery.” Journal of Telemedicine & Telecare 23(5): 529–535. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27279467&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F07%2F2024.11.07.24316892.atom) 4. Barker TH, Habibi N, Aromataris E, Stone JC, Leonardi-Bee J, Sears K, et al. The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias quasi-experimental studies. JBI Evid Synth. 2024;22(3):378–88. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=38287725&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F07%2F2024.11.07.24316892.atom) 5. Barker TH, Stone JC, Sears K, Klugar M, Tufanaru C, Leonardi-Bee J, Aromataris E, Munn Z. The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for randomized controlled trials. JBI Evidence Synthesis. 2023;21(3):494–506 [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=36727247&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F07%2F2024.11.07.24316892.atom) 6. Keaver L, Xu B, Jaccard A, et al. (2020). Morbid obesity in the UK: A modelling projection study to 2035. Scand J Public Health. 2020 Jun;48(4):422–427. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=30160640&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F07%2F2024.11.07.24316892.atom) 7. Kulinski, K. and N. A. Smith (2020). “Surgical prehabilitation using mobile health coaching in patients with obesity: A pilot study.” Anaesthesia & Intensive Care 48(5): 373–380. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33104444&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F07%2F2024.11.07.24316892.atom) 8. Lau, T., et al. (2024). “Psychological Benefits of a Preoperative Educational Bridging Program for Bariatric Surgery: Does Face-to-Face versus Videoconference-based delivery make a difference?” Obesity Facts 17: 17. 9. Life Sciences Hub Wales (2023). Cwm Taf Morgannwg’s new weight management service. Available: [https://lshubwales.com/success-stories/cwm-taf-morgannwgs-new-weight-management-service](https://lshubwales.com/success-stories/cwm-taf-morgannwgs-new-weight-management-service) 10. Marc-Hernandez, A., et al. (2019). “Impact of Exercise on Body Composition and Cardiometabolic Risk Factors in Patients Awaiting Bariatric Surgery.” Obesity Surgery 29(12): 3891–3900. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s11695-019-04088-9&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=31313237&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F07%2F2024.11.07.24316892.atom) 11. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2023). Digital technologies for delivering multidisciplinary weight-management services: early value assessment. Health technology evaluation, HTE14. Available: [https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/hte14](https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/hte14) 12. Public Health Wales (2016). Making a Difference: Investing in Sustainable Health and Well-being for the People of Wales, Executive Summary. Available: [https://phwwhocc.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Making-a-Difference-Investing-in-Sustainable-Health-and-Well-being-for-the-People-of-Wales.pdf](https://phwwhocc.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Making-a-Difference-Investing-in-Sustainable-Health-and-Well-being-for-the-People-of-Wales.pdf) 13. StatsWales (2023). National Survey for Wales – adult lifestyle by local authority and health board. Available: [https://statswales.gov.wales/Catalogue/National-Survey-for-Wales/Population-Health/Adult-Lifestyles/adultlifestyles-by-healthboard-from-202021](https://statswales.gov.wales/Catalogue/National-Survey-for-Wales/Population-Health/Adult-Lifestyles/adultlifestyles-by-healthboard-from-202021) 14. The Telegraph (2024). Widening waistbands are a burden on Britain. Available: [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/14/widening-waistbands-are-a-burden-on-britain/](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/14/widening-waistbands-are-a-burden-on-britain/) 15. Tokgoz, G., et al. (2022). “Effects of pre-surgical aerobic dance-based exercise on lower extremity in people with morbid obesity awaiting bariatric surgery: Randomized controlled study.” Clinical Obesity 12(4): e12529. 16. Watkins P. (2024). The rise in obesity: some food for thought. Senedd Research web pages. Available: https://research.senedd.wales/research-articles/the-rise-in-obesity-some-food-for-thought/#:∼:text=The%20most%20recent%20figures%20from,are%20also%20increasing%20among%20children. 17. Welsh Government (2021). All Wales Weight Management Pathway 2021. (Adults): Core Components. Available: [https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2021-06/all-wales-weight-management-pathway-2021.pdf](https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2021-06/all-wales-weight-management-pathway-2021.pdf) 18. Welsh Government (2011). Assessing the costs to the NHS associated with alcohol and obesity in Wales. Available: [https://www.llyw.cymru/sites/default/files/statistics-and-research/2019-08/alcoholmisuseandobesityreporten_0.pdf](https://www.llyw.cymru/sites/default/files/statistics-and-research/2019-08/alcoholmisuseandobesityreporten_0.pdf) 19. Welsh NHS Confederation (2024). The Welsh NHS Confederation response to The Health and Social Care Committee’s consultation into the Prevention of ill health – obesity. Available: [https://www.nhsconfed.org/system/files/2024-06/wnhsc\_response\_obesity\_inquiry.pdf](https://www.nhsconfed.org/system/files/2024-06/wnhsc_response_obesity_inquiry.pdf)