Applicability of obesity clinical practice guidelines in low- and middle-income countries

Obesity is a chronic disease and its impact on individuals and society is a major global health problem, with a high prevalence across all socio-economic strata. Some specialty societies include obesity management related recommendations in clinical practice guidelines, but relatively few guidelines are specifically designed to fully address its diagnosis and management. We sought to understand clinicians' use of obesity clinical practice guidelines in their practice, the perceived deficiencies and implementation barriers, and differences between those practicing in high-income countries (HIC) and those in low-/middle-income countries (LMIC). An email survey of physicians in the Translational Medicine Academy database was offered from August 26 to December 26, 2024 to inquire about participants' demographic information, experience, and views of obesity guidelines as related to their practice. Of 1,412 participating clinicians from 129 countries, 741 partially completed, and an additional 671 fully completed the survey: 281 practiced in HIC; 1,130 in LMIC. Obesity was recognized as a disease (93.5% of respondents) as was its impact on other disorders: cardiovascular disease ranked as the most important, and hepatic disorders the least, with no differences between HIC and LMIC. Only 13.1% regarded the guidelines as equally applicable across different economic strata and geography, and just 29% thought the guidelines to be applicable in their country, with no difference between HIC and LMIC. The most frequently indicated reason given for hindering implementation of obesity guidelines was that they were primarily relevant for HIC; the most common local factor hindering implementation was cost, with no difference in views between HIC and LMIC. There was broad agreement (83.4%) for the importance/need for specific recommendations for patients of differing socio-economic status, with no difference between HIC (79.4%) and LMIC (84.3%; p=0.191), and for guideline authors to include those from LMIC (68.7%), with those from LMIC agreeing more strongly (73.1%) than did those from HIC (50.4%; p<0.00001). Most clinicians from both HIC and LMIC do not consider obesity guidelines to be applicable in their country, and appear to have minimal recognition of obesity’s impact on hepatic disorders, suggesting a need for improved clinician education and awareness. It was widely recognized that guidelines should have specific recommendations directed at differing socio-economic environments, and writing committees including authors from those settings.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Global Cardiology
Published
2025-06-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.4081/cardio.2025.77
Primary Topic
Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Applicability of obesity clinical practice guidelines in low- and middle-income countries

Fausto José Pinto, Javed Butler, Linong Ji, Martha Gulati et al.
Global Cardiology
Clinical practice guidelines implementation
article

Applicability of obesity clinical practice guidelines in low- and middle-income countries

Fausto José Pinto, Javed Butler, Linong Ji, Martha Gulati, Richard Weiskopf, Andrew J.S. Coats, John James Atherton, Tammy L. Kindel, William T. Abraham, Vijay Chopra, Shelley R. Zieroth, Yann Colardelle, Yuhui Zhang, Stefan D. Anker, José Luis Zamorano
article en

Abstract

Obesity is a chronic disease and its impact on individuals and society is a major global health problem, with a high prevalence across all socio-economic strata. Some specialty societies include obesity management related recommendations in clinical practice guidelines, but relatively few guidelines are specifically designed to fully address its diagnosis and management. We sought to understand clinicians' use of obesity clinical practice guidelines in their practice, the perceived deficiencies and implementation barriers, and differences between those practicing in high-income countries (HIC) and those in low-/middle-income countries (LMIC). An email survey of physicians in the Translational Medicine Academy database was offered from August 26 to December 26, 2024 to inquire about participants' demographic information, experience, and views of obesity guidelines as related to their practice. Of 1,412 participating clinicians from 129 countries, 741 partially completed, and an additional 671 fully completed the survey: 281 practiced in HIC; 1,130 in LMIC. Obesity was recognized as a disease (93.5% of respondents) as was its impact on other disorders: cardiovascular disease ranked as the most important, and hepatic disorders the least, with no differences between HIC and LMIC. Only 13.1% regarded the guidelines as equally applicable across different economic strata and geography, and just 29% thought the guidelines to be applicable in their country, with no difference between HIC and LMIC. The most frequently indicated reason given for hindering implementation of obesity guidelines was that they were primarily relevant for HIC; the most common local factor hindering implementation was cost, with no difference in views between HIC and LMIC. There was broad agreement (83.4%) for the importance/need for specific recommendations for patients of differing socio-economic status, with no difference between HIC (79.4%) and LMIC (84.3%; p=0.191), and for guideline authors to include those from LMIC (68.7%), with those from LMIC agreeing more strongly (73.1%) than did those from HIC (50.4%; p<0.00001). Most clinicians from both HIC and LMIC do not consider obesity guidelines to be applicable in their country, and appear to have minimal recognition of obesity’s impact on hepatic disorders, suggesting a need for improved clinician education and awareness. It was widely recognized that guidelines should have specific recommendations directed at differing socio-economic environments, and writing committees including authors from those settings.

Global CardiologyVol. 3(2)
University of Lisbon (PT), Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College (CN), Peking University (CN), Medical College of Wisconsin (US), Instituto Cajal (ES), Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital (AU), Musik Akademie Basel (CH), The Heart Research Institute (AU), Max Super Speciality Hospital (IN), Peking University People's Hospital (CN), German Centre for Cardiovascular Research (DE), Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute (US), Baylor Scott & White Health (US), Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal (ES), Fu Wai Hospital (CN), University of Manitoba (CA), The Ohio State University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 76%
Clinical practice guidelines implementation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.