Article Text

Evaluation of evidence supporting NICE recommendations to change people's lifestyle in clinical practice: cross sectional survey
  1. Loai Albarqouni1,
  2. Martin Ringsten2,3,
  3. Victor Montori4,
  4. Karsten Juhl Jørgensen5,
  5. Helen Bulbeck6 and
  6. Minna Johansson3,7,8
  1. 1Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia
  2. 2Lund University, Lund, Sweden
  3. 3Cochrane Sweden, Lund, Sweden
  4. 4Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
  5. 5Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Odense (CEBMO) and Cochrane Denmark, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
  6. 6Cochrane Consumer Network Executive, Brainstrust, Cowes, UK
  7. 7Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Gothenburg Institute of Medicine, Gothenburg, Sweden
  8. 8Global Center for Sustainable Healthcare, Uddevalla, Sweden
  1. Correspondence to Dr Minna Johansson; minna.johansson{at}vgregion.se

Abstract

Objectives To assess whether recommendations of individually oriented lifestyle interventions (IOLIs) in guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) were underpinned by evidence of benefit, and whether harms and opportunity costs were considered.

Design Cross sectional survey.

Setting UK.

Data sources NICE guidelines and supporting evidence.

Eligibility criteria All NICE pathways for IOLI recommendations (ie, non-drug interventions that healthcare professionals administer to adults to achieve a healthier lifestyle and improve health) were searched systematically on 26 August 2020. One author screened all retrieved pathways for candidate guidelines, while a second author verified these judgments. Two authors independently and in duplicate screened all retrieved guidelines and recommendations for eligibility, extracted data, and evaluated the evidence cited and the outcomes considered. Disagreements were noted and resolved by consensus.

Results Within 57 guidelines, 379 NICE recommendations were found for IOLIs; almost all (n=374; 99%) recommended the lifestyle intervention and five (1%) recommended against the intervention. Of the 379 recommendations, 13 (3%) were supported by moderate or high certainty evidence of a beneficial effect on patient relevant outcomes (n=7; 2%) or surrogate outcomes (n=13; 3%). 19 (5%) interventions considered psychosocial harms, 32 (8%) considered physical harms, and one (<1%) considered the opportunity costs of implementation. No intervention considered the burden placed on individuals by these recommendations.

Conclusion Few NICE recommendations of lifestyle interventions are supported by reliable evidence. While this finding does not contest the beneficial effects of healthy habits, guidelines recommending clinicians to try to change people’s lifestyle need to be reconsidered given the substantial uncertainty about the effectiveness, harms, and opportunity costs of such interventions.

  • health policy

Data availability statement

Data are available in a public, open access repository. All data is available in appendices, which are published in the Open Science Framework (osf.io/42juh).

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

Data are available in a public, open access repository. All data is available in appendices, which are published in the Open Science Framework (osf.io/42juh).

View Full Text

Supplementary materials

  • Supplementary Data

    This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

Footnotes

  • Twitter @LoaiAlbarqouni

  • Contributors MJ conceived the idea for this project and drafted the project plan. All authors contributed with important intellectual content to develop the project plan. MJ, MR, and LA performed the screening. MJ and LA performed data extraction, formal analysis, and drafted the manuscript. All authors contributed with important intellectual content through reviewing and editing the manuscript. MJ and LA are guarantors and accept full responsibility for the work and the conduct of the study, had access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish. All authors have accepted the final version of the manuscript. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted. Transparency: The lead author (the guarantor) affirms that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned (and, if relevant, registered) have been explained.

  • Funding This project was partly funded by Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare (project number 2019-00928). The funders had no role in considering the study design or in the collection, analysis, interpretation of data, writing of the report, or decision to submit the article for publication.

  • Competing interests All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Linked Articles