Objective To evaluate and compare the measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 among Chinese overweight and obesity populations.Methods A representative sample of Chinese overweight and obesity populations was recruited stratified by age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and area of residence. Social-demographic characteristics and self-reported EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 responses were collected through the online survey. The agreement was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Convergent validity and known-group validity were examined using Spearman's rank correlation and effect sizes, respectively. The test-retest reliability was assessed using among a subgroup of the total sample. Sensitivity was compared using relative efficiency and receiver operating characteristic.Results A total of 1000 respondents (52.0% male, mean age 51.7 years, 67.7% overweight, 32.3% obesity) were included in this study. A higher ceiling effect was observed in EQ-5D-5L than in SF-6Dv2 (30.6% vs. 2.1%). The mean (SD) utility was 0.851 (0.195) for EQ-5D-5L and 0.734 (0.164) for SF-6Dv2, with the ICC of the total sample was 0.639 (p < 0.001). The Spearman's rank correlation (range: 0.186-0.739) indicated an acceptable convergent validity between the dimensions of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2. The EQ-5D-5L showed basically equivalent discriminative capacities with the SF-6Dv2 (ES: 0.517-1.885 vs. 0.383-2.329). The ICC between the two tests were 0.939 for EQ-5D-5L and 0.972 for SF-6Dv2 among the subgroup (N = 150). The SF-6Dv2 had 3.7-170.1% higher efficiency than the EQ-5D-5L at detecting differences in self-reported health status, while the EQ-5D-5L was found to be 16.4% more efficient at distinguishing between respondents with diabetes and non-diabetes.Conclusions Both the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 showed comparable reliability, validity, and sensitivity when used in Chinese overweight and obesity populations. The two measures may not be interchangeable given the systematic difference in utility values between the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2. More research is needed to compare the responsiveness.

Background: Gestational diabetes mellitus was associated with increased risks of complications during pregnancy and delivery. The efficacy of probiotics for preventing atopic disease among overweight and obese pregnant women has not been a unified conclusion. Therefore, we aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of probiotics supplementation for overweight and obese pregnant women. Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials from the earliest publication date available to September 23, 2020, regardless of language or publication status. Two reviewers independently extracted data with a standardized form. When disagreements arose, a third investigator was consulted. Data was pooled using the generic inverse variance method and expressed as mean differences and relative risk with 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was measured and quantified by I-2 statistic. Results: There were no significant differences between probiotics and placebo on GDM (RR = 1.03; 95% CI, 0.81-1.30; P = 0.821; I-2 = 38.7%, P = 0.180), excess gestational weight gain (RR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.79 -1.06; P = 0.223; I-2 = 91.2%, P = 0.001) and neonatal birth weight (WMD = 28.47; 95% CI, -34.80-91.73; P = 0.383; I-2 = 4.5%, P = 0.381). In addition, probiotics might increase the risk of preeclampsia including superimposed (RR = 1.91; 95% CI, 1.03-3.55; P = 0.001; I-2 = 0.0%, P = 0.994). Conclusions: Probiotics had no better efficacy for prevention of atopic disease in overweight or obese pregnant women. In contrast, excessive probiotics supplementation might increase the risk of preeclampsia. More data will be necessary to determine the prevention efficacy of probiotics with consideration of real-world and other epidemiological settings. (C) 2022 European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Obesity and overweight conditions have become major health challenges worldwide. The exploration of effective weight loss strategies is essential. Nudges are currently advancing approaches that represent a new and better method for changing the behaviors of people. However, the effectiveness of nudge interventions on weight loss in overweight people who may be obese has not been synthesized in a systematic manner. In this study, a systematic literature search was performed. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were considered. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated as summary statistics. In total, 25 RCTs involving a population of 5,929 individuals were included. Significant effects of the nudge strategy on weight loss (WMD: -0.96 kg, 95% CI: -1.49 to -0.43), body mass index (WMD: -0.3 kg/m2, 95% CI: -0.41 to -0.19) and waist circumference (WMD: -0.75 cm, 95% CI: -1.23 to -0.27) were observed. The subgroup analysis showed that the reduction in body weight associated with nudge interventions was significant in younger and more obese people. Moreover, the effect of nudge intervention on weight loss weakened over time. Overall, the nudge strategy can promote changes in weight loss, body mass index and waist circumference of adults, albeit at a mild magnitude and in particular types of individuals. Nudge strategies can be recommended to clinical practitioners and policy-makers to promote obesity management.

Sweetened beverage (SB) taxes have recently been introduced to prevent obesity by several governments, but limited information on related policy adoption processes hampers further diffusion. We investigated the agenda-setting and decision-making phases of SB tax reforms in Berkeley and Philadelphia (where it was successfully adopted), and Cook County (where it was repealed). A web-based survey, semi structured stakeholder interviews, and a local media coverage analysis were used to collect information. Findings were structured and analyzed using the health policy triangle of Buse, Mays and Walt. Six general lessons emerged. First, the policy was coupled to existing high-agenda items (e.g., financing pre-kindergarten in Philadelphia). Second, policy framing had to align prevailing political sentiments, as expressed in media (e.g., ‘Berkeley vs. Big Soda’ echoed skepticism of corporate influence in politics). Third, existing tax policies and political decision-making rules were important (e.g., confusion how the SB tax related to state and federal taxes fueled Cook County opposition). Fourth, the tax structure required technical and political considerations during policy formulation (e.g., artificially-sweetened beverages were included in Philadelphia to counteract arguments that the tax was regressive). Fifth, it was important to build an advocacy coalition upfront (e.g., the Berkeley coalition was constructed prior to announcing the attempt). Sixth, successful advocacy coalitions were locally grounded and influenced local media (e.g., the Cook County opposition engaged local retailers).

Taxation of energy-dense foods (EDFs) and sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) is increasingly of interest as a novel public health and fiscal policy instrument. However academic interest in policy determinants has remained limited. We address this paucity by comparing the policy content and policy context of EDF/SSB taxes witnessed in 13 case studies, of which we assume the tax is sufficiently high to induce behavioural change. The observational and non-randomized studies published on our case studies seem to indicate that the EDF/SSB taxes under investigation generally had the desired effects on prices and consumption of targeted products. The revenue collection of EDF/SSB taxes is minimal yet significant. Administrative practicalities in tax levying are important, possibly explaining why a drift towards solely taxing SSBs can be noted, as these can be demarcated more easily, with levies seemingly increasing in more recent case studies. Despite the growing body of evidence suggesting that EDF/SSB taxes have the potential to improve health, fiscal needs more often seem to lay their policy foundation rather than public health advocacy. A remarkable amount of conservative/liberal governments have adopted these taxes, although in many cases revenues are earmarked for benefits compensating regressive income effects. Governments voice diverse policy rationales, ranging from explicitly describing the tax as a public health instrument, to solely explicating revenue raising