Obesity pillars · 2026
Rethinking obesity management targets: Findings from an international MoSCoW prioritization workshop.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sockalingam Sanjeev, Racey Megan, Sherifali Diana, Alberga Angela S, Ard Jamy, Horn Deborah Bade, Busetto Luca, Kaplan Lee M, Le Roux Carel W, Macklin David, Nece Patricia, Patton Ian, Pearce Nicole, Preiss Yudith, Salmon Leguede Morgan Emile Gabriel, Sharma Arya M, Teoh Soo Huat, van Rossum Elisabeth F C, Wada Jun, Wharton Sean
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Obesity is a chronic disease that requires individualized, person-centred care beyond traditional weight-centric targets. Despite growing global recognition of obesity's multifactorial nature, research and treatment goals remain narrowly focused on percent weight loss, often misaligned with patient experiences and broader health outcomes. To address this gap, and building on a prior scoping review, we convened an international priority-setting workshop to identify and prioritize requirements to inform the subsequent development of a comprehensive obesity management framework.
METHODS: This was an international workshop study using the MoSCoW (Must have, Should have, Could have, Won't have) prioritization method to identify and prioritize requirements, outcome domains, and implementation considerations to inform the future development of an obesity management framework. The invitation-only workshop was held in Toronto, Canada, with participants including clinicians, researchers, organizational representatives, and individuals with lived experience. Data from breakout group discussions were synthesized into thematic categories and validated through member checking.
RESULTS: Eighteen participants contributed to the workshop, resulting in 15 prioritized themes across the four MoSCoW categories. "Must-have" themes included multi-faceted pillars of obesity care (e.g., pharmacotherapy, behavioral support, surgery), healthcare provider sensitivity training, and valid outcome measures that assess complications and patient-reported outcomes. "Should-have" themes emphasized mental health tracking, functional outcomes, and personalized metrics. "Could-have" themes included ongoing education, team-based care, and policy integration. "Won't-have" themes rejected stigmatizing language, aesthetic-based success markers, and short-term interventions. Across the prioritized themes, participants emphasized shared decision-making, compassionate care, and alignment with patient values, preferences, and lived experience.
CONCLUSIONS: The themes address obesity management targets alongside related care, measurement, education, and implementation considerations. This workshop represents a foundational step toward developing a comprehensive obesity management framework that integrates clinical evidence, patient priorities, and system-level considerations. Future work will focus on framework co-development, implementation, customization, and evaluation across healthcare settings.
METHODS: This was an international workshop study using the MoSCoW (Must have, Should have, Could have, Won't have) prioritization method to identify and prioritize requirements, outcome domains, and implementation considerations to inform the future development of an obesity management framework. The invitation-only workshop was held in Toronto, Canada, with participants including clinicians, researchers, organizational representatives, and individuals with lived experience. Data from breakout group discussions were synthesized into thematic categories and validated through member checking.
RESULTS: Eighteen participants contributed to the workshop, resulting in 15 prioritized themes across the four MoSCoW categories. "Must-have" themes included multi-faceted pillars of obesity care (e.g., pharmacotherapy, behavioral support, surgery), healthcare provider sensitivity training, and valid outcome measures that assess complications and patient-reported outcomes. "Should-have" themes emphasized mental health tracking, functional outcomes, and personalized metrics. "Could-have" themes included ongoing education, team-based care, and policy integration. "Won't-have" themes rejected stigmatizing language, aesthetic-based success markers, and short-term interventions. Across the prioritized themes, participants emphasized shared decision-making, compassionate care, and alignment with patient values, preferences, and lived experience.
CONCLUSIONS: The themes address obesity management targets alongside related care, measurement, education, and implementation considerations. This workshop represents a foundational step toward developing a comprehensive obesity management framework that integrates clinical evidence, patient priorities, and system-level considerations. Future work will focus on framework co-development, implementation, customization, and evaluation across healthcare settings.