Acceptability of a Korean Medicine-Based Obesity Program Among Patients Achieving Predefined Weight-Loss Targets: A Retrospective Mixed-Methods Study

Résumé fourni par la source

Background and Objectives: Although herbal medicine-based obesity treatment programs are used in obesity management, empirical research on patient acceptability remains limited. This study examined acceptability of a Korean medicine-based obesity treatment program (KM-OBP) among patients who achieved predefined weight-loss targets in routine clinical care. Materials and Methods: Medical records and satisfaction survey data routinely collected during clinical practice at a single Korean medicine clinic were retrospectively analyzed. Patients had baseline body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m2 and achieved both ≥10% weight loss and BMI ≤ 23 kg/m2 during follow-up. BMI trajectories and adverse-event occurrence were summarized descriptively. Satisfaction ratings were reported on a 5-point Likert scale, and free-text responses were retrospectively analyzed using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Results: Of 3798 patients with a baseline BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 and at least two BMI measurements, 37 (0.97%) met the predefined targets; 16 completed the satisfaction survey. Mean BMI change from the first to last measurement was −8.9 kg/m2, and median change was −8.8 kg/m2 (interquartile range, −9.6 to −7.7). Common documented adverse events were constipation, nausea, and dizziness. Satisfaction ratings were descriptively high for the overall program, perceived helpfulness for obesity treatment, and herbal medicine. Among the 16 survey respondents, perceived weight-loss benefits, program structure, safety, and health improvement were described as facilitators of acceptability, whereas post-treatment weight regain, dietary burden, and financial concerns were described as barriers. Conclusions: The findings characterize satisfaction and reported acceptability experiences among survey respondents within a highly selected target-achieving cohort. Interpretation is limited by outcome-based selection, potential non-response bias, the small survey sample, and the single-center design.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.