Effectiveness of Obesity management strategies for Cardiac-risk Adults

Effectiveness Of Obesity Management Strategies in Working Adults with Cardiac Risk Factors in Primary Care

Introduction

Obesity constitutes one of the major public health issues facing many societies across the globe. The condition is associated with the increased prevalence of multiple illnesses, such as diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and high blood pressure. Obesity is also associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular diseases. According to Ortega‐Loudon et al. (2019), obesity causes irregularities in an individual’s circulatory system, which results in the development of adverse conditions such as cardiomyopathy, coronary artery disease, and heart failure. In the strive to reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases among patients, various strategies are implemented to manage obesity. In the primary care setting, obesity management methods aim at reducing cardiac risk among patients. Since many working adults adopt a sedentary lifestyle, they are predisposed to health risks associated with obesity. The condition also combines with other risk factors to increase cardiac risk. Obesity management interventions are, therefore, implemented in the primary care setting to reduce cardiovascular risk among such patients. Although such strategies help working adults manage their weight and reduce cardiovascular risk, they are associated with multiple inconsistencies that make weight management a challenge among working adults. This study investigates the effectiveness of obesity management strategies in working adults with cardiac risk factors in the primary care setting. Although weight management interventions administered to working adults significantly reduce their cardiac risk, they may interfere with the body’s ability to acquire important nutrients, increase the risk of sarcopenia, and are prone to non-adherence.

Problem Statement

The weight management interventions administered to working adults significantly reduce their risk of cardiovascular disease. In the primary care setting, clinicians assess the patient’s weight and engage them in discussions to identify the potential factors that could have triggered obesity. Such an analysis helps clinicians identify obesity risk factors and develop interventional methods to alleviate them to support the patient’s weight management. The clinicians advise the patients about the health risks associated with obesity, various health benefits of modest weight management, and the need for a long-term weight management plan that the patients in their daily lives implement to alleviate obesity gradually. The long-term weight management plans include healthy lifestyle practices such as engaging in regular physical exercise, eating responsibly and mindfully, decreasing screentime and maintaining a positive attitude (Ryan & Kahan, 2018, p. 49). Depending on the extremity of obesity, the clinicians may collaborate with the patient to develop and implement treatment interventions to help with weight loss. For example, a gastric bypass may reduce the patient’s food intake. Such interventions help to reduce cardiac risk and other health implications of obesity.

However, such interventions are blamed for causing diverse health implications. Interventions seeking to reduce patient food intake affect nutrient intake and cause serious health effects. As a result of ageing, the body’s ability to acquire important macronutrients and micronutrients gradually decline. As interventions are implemented to reduce food intake among working adults, their bodies lack various nutrients necessary to maintain health and reduce the rate of ageing. For example, gastric bypass is administered to reduce the amount of food an individual consumes as a weight management strategy. However, the strategy reduces the intake of important nutrients, such s calcium and vitamin D, which exacerbates the age-related declines in those nutrients. The strategy also exposes such individuals to the risk of declining bone density. Due to a sudden decline in the intake of minerals, such as calcium, necessary to maintain strong bones, individuals receiving weight management interventions experience an increased risk of bone fractures (Savvidis et al., 2018, p. 205). Therefore, working adults’ weight loss interventions should be structured to meet their nutritional requirements.

Weigh management interventions for working adults with cardiac risk factors also expose them to sarcopenia and rapid progression of diabetes and other chronic conditions. Adults who receive weight management interventions experience an increased rate of age-related loss of lean muscle mass. As such, individuals reduce food intake while increasing their bodily energy demand due to physical exercise, and their lean muscles grow weaker, leading to functional decline as their muscles rapidly lose their mass. The development of sarcopenia among working adults could lead to a decline in their physical capacity to perform their duties, interrupting their professional lives in the long run. Weight loss interventions can also increase the risk of development and rapid progression of cardiovascular health conditions among working adults with cardiac risk factors. According to Olfert and Wattick (2018), individuals who receive weight management interventions while engaging in negative behaviours such as smoking and drug abuse experience an increased risk of developing chronic conditions associated with such behaviours. Rapid weight loss increases the concentration of drug-related toxic substances in the body, which increases the risk of contracting adverse health conditions associated with drug abuse. Similarly, individuals taking medications for various underlying conditions may experience increased intensity of side effects of the medicine after rapidly losing weight. Therefore, it is important to investigate potential weight management interventions that reduce the risk of disease progression among working adults with underlying health conditions.

Weight loss interventions administered in the primary care setting are prone to non-adherence by the patients. Patients may experience difficulties implementing some of the clinicians’ recommended weight management recommendations. As a result, the entire weight management intervention is prone to non-adherence. Patients may lack the sufficient economic and physical capacity to engage in various activities to help them lose weight. For instance, despite their inclination to engage in physical activity to manage weight, working adults may lack adequate time to implement retinue physical exercise. As a result, such individuals fail to implement the strategy successfully. While dietary regulation constitutes a common weight management strategy recommended by primary care clinicians, some patients may lack the adequate financial capacity to implement the recommended nutrition plan (Khandelwal, 2020, p. 140). Various socio-economic factors may also limit a person’s weight loss intention and ability to implement obesity management strategies. Clinicians should, therefore, develop weight management interventions that accommodate economic and social differences among patients.

Implementing weight management strategies in the primary care setting may expose working adults to mental health issues. When a person loses weight so quickly, they develop various psychological consequences. Such implications result from abnormalities in the brain’s hormone function, which results in serious conditions like dysmorphia and bulimia. Eventually, the cognitive and psychological implications of rapid weight loss limit working adults’ capacity to perform their daily tasks. Such conditions may cause institutionalization or even loss of jobs among such individuals. Therefore, it is important to investigate the effectiveness of weight management techniques administered in primary care and identify possible ways to improve their efficiency in obesity management.

References

Ortega‐Loubon, C., Fernández‐Molina, M., Singh, G., & Correa, R. (2019). Obesity and its cardiovascular effects. Diabetes/metabolism research and reviews, 35(4), e3135. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/dmrr.3135

Ryan, D. H., & Kahan, S. (2018). Guideline recommendations for obesity management. Medical Clinics, 102(1), 49-63. https://www.medical.theclinics.com/article/S0025-7125(17)30130-X/abstract

Savvidis, C., Tournis, S., & Dede, A. D. (2018). Obesity and bone metabolism. Hormones, 17(2), 205-217. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42000-018-0018-4

Olfert, M. D., & Wattick, R. A. (2018). Vegetarian diets and the risk of diabetes. Current diabetes reports, 18(11), 1-6. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11892-018-1070-9

Khandelwal, S. (2020). Obesity in midlife: lifestyle and dietary strategies. Climacteric, 23(2), 140-147. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13697137.2019.1660638