Weight stigma and internalised weight bias are associated with poor mental, social and physical health. Weight-neutral approaches prioritise well-being and sustainable health behaviours. However, the feasibility and acceptability of weight-neutral interventions remain uncertain.

Weight-Neutral Health Intervention (WIN) is an investigator-initiated single-arm feasibility study enrolling 56 adults with body mass index ≥30 kg/m² in the Capital Region of Denmark. The study investigates a codesigned weight-neutral health intervention. The 6-month intervention comprises 1 preparatory session and 11 group sessions led by trained practitioners, focusing on intuitive eating, body acceptance and self-compassion; optional components include support-network events, up to three individual online sessions and access to ‘size-inclusive yoga’ and ‘body competence’ courses. The primary feasibility outcome is follow-up completion. Recruitment proportion and adherence are secondary feasibility outcomes. These will be assessed using a set of predefined ‘traffic-light’ stop/go progression criteria. Exploratory feasibility outcomes include data completeness for other outcomes and participant engagement with the intervention. Exploratory clinical outcomes include questionnaire data (quality of life, depression, weight bias internalisation, eating behaviours, self-esteem, body image, stress and life satisfaction), clinical measures (weight, heart rate and blood pressure), biomarkers (blood samples and hair cortisol), 7-day actigraphy (physical activity and sleep) and serious adverse events. Qualitative interviews, focus groups and fieldnotes will be used to explore acceptability and contextual factors. If progression criteria are met, the study will inform the design of a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised trial. The exploratory outcomes will inform outcome selection, setting, sample size and procedures.

Approved by the Regional Ethics Committee of the Capital Region of Denmark (H-25013213). Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conferences and public platforms.

NCT06922630.

To assess the impact of a National Enhanced Service (NES) incentive for weight management that financially rewarded practices for each eligible patient referred to a weight management programme.

Interrupted time-series analysis to examine the rate of weight management referral and weight management advice.

Primary healthcare records from January 2018 to December 2024 in the Oxford Clinical Informatics Digital Hub, covering 8.3 million patients in 1198 primary care clinics around England.

NES payments to practices for weight management were introduced in April 2021.

The rate of referral increased from 1 referral per 1000 patients per month before the incentive to around 4 referrals per 1000 patients per month afterwards. There was no evidence that the increase differed by age, gender, ethnic group or socioeconomic status. The occurrence of weight management advice was unchanged by the introduction of the NES and was at least three times more common than referral to weight management services.

The NES was associated with a fourfold increase in referrals to weight management services. However, clinicians are much more likely to offer advice rather than a referral to a weight management programme. There is a clear opportunity to improve outcomes for patients by encouraging greater use of referrals to effective weight management services in place of advice.

The number of people living with obesity is increasing rapidly worldwide, and the WHO estimates approximately 5 million deaths yearly from non-communicable diseases related to elevated body mass index (BMI). The most effective treatment for weight loss is bariatric surgery, but due to the associated risks and the need for lifelong care, this is not a viable treatment for every patient. With the advent of gut-hormone-based medications to treat obesity, the effectiveness of non-surgical treatment is approaching that of surgical interventions. We therefore aim to investigate the beneficial and harmful effects of laparoscopic bariatric surgery versus any non-surgical treatment.

We will conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis applying our eight-step procedure to assess thresholds for clinical significance and trial sequential analysis to mitigate the risk of random errors. To identify relevant trials, we will search for both published and unpublished trials, without any language restriction, in major medical databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, SCI-EXPANDED and CPCI-S) and trial registries. The date range covered by the search is from database inception until final search date—within 3 months prior to submission of final results manuscript. Two review authors will independently screen references, extract data and perform risk-of-bias assessment using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2 and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations. We will include randomised clinical trials comparing laparoscopic surgery currently in use with any non-surgical comparator in adults or adolescents with BMI >30 kg/m². Quasi-randomised studies or non-randomised studies will not be included. Our critical outcomes are all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and quality of life, and our important outcomes are major cardiovascular events, weight at follow-up, physical function and glycaemic control. In addition, we have two explorative outcomes: metabolic syndrome or Z-score and reported incident of alcohol abuse or other addictive disorder or self-inflicted harm.

This review will collect and perform secondary analysis of data from publicly available sources and ethical approval is therefore not required. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant scientific conferences. We will strive to publish with open access. Awareness will be made through social media platforms. This review aims to help clinicians in identifying best practices in the wide-spanning field of obesity treatment.

CRD420251135341.