Programmes to eat well or move more helped; those that tracked progress helped more.

The review

1. 01

   Who took part

   About 45,000 adults took part in 122 studies. Studies of people with long-term illness were left out, most studies were in the USA, and about 1 in 5 targeted women.

2. 02

   What they did

   Each programme used about six of 26 methods, such as tracking progress and setting goals. Programmes ran from one session to two and a half years, averaging about 25 weeks.

3. 03

   What happened

   Overall, the programmes helped a small amount more than the other groups did. Programmes that had people track their progress helped more than those that did not. Programmes that tracked progress with another method also helped more. The funnel plot was lopsided, which is a sign of publication bias, and the studies differed widely.

What the review found

1. Helped

   Across 122 studies, help with healthy eating or exercise helped people more than other groups.

   Pooled analysis of 122 studies with 44,747 people · vs people who got no help or usual care · ⚠ signs that small negative studies went unpublished; whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited; mixes trials with other kinds of study

2. Helped

   Across 46 studies, programmes that had people track their progress helped more than other programmes did.

   • Action: Track your progresstested

   Pooled analysis of 46 studies with 11,019 people · vs programmes without progress tracking · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited; mixes trials with other kinds of study

3. Helped

   Across 42 studies, tracking progress plus another method helped more than the rest.

   • Action: Track your progresstested

   Pooled analysis of 42 studies with 10,572 people · vs other programmes, some of which tracked progress alone · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited; mixes trials with other kinds of study

Source