GLP-1 Medications May Reshape Obesity Care, but Clinicians Still Have Questions

Key Takeaways: 

• Staff saw injectable GLP-1 medications as a valuable middle option between behavioural support and bariatric surgery.
  
• Their strongest concerns centred on what happens after treatment stops, particularly weight regain and masked behavioural patterns.
  
• Most had learned about these medications from patients rather than through formal training.
  
  
  

A service preparing for a change it had not yet made

A qualitative study published in Obesity Science & Practice set out to capture something rarely documented: what healthcare professionals think about injectable GLP-1 medications before their service begins prescribing them. The researchers interviewed staff at a United Kingdom Tier 3 weight management service that had applications for approval in place but was not yet prescribing, giving an unusually clean view of expectations, hopes and anxieties uncoloured by direct prescribing experience.

The timing matters because these medications are moving quickly into routine obesity care. One in eight people worldwide lives with obesity, a scale that demands sustained attention from health authorities. In England, weight management is organised across four tiers, running from population-level prevention and lifestyle services through to specialist multidisciplinary care and bariatric surgery. Injectable GLP-1 medications, including semaglutide and tirzepatide (a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide/glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist), are increasingly built into these pathways. Semaglutide is recommended for eligible patients within specialist services, while tirzepatide can also be prescribed in NHS primary care.

How the study was carried out

Participants were recruited from a Tier 3 service in England providing interpersonal nutritional advice and behavioural support to people with a body mass index above 40 kg/m², or between 35 and 39.9 kg/m² alongside a weight-related comorbidity.

Interviews took place between 20 June and 19 July 2024. Eligible participants were behavioural change advisors or nutrition advisors, and importantly, none of them held prescribing privileges. Staff were invited by email and completed an information sheet, an electronic consent form, a demographic questionnaire and an interview-date selection.

The research team developed a semi-structured interview schedule, refining it after a pilot interview. Questions covered knowledge of semaglutide, perceived benefits, concerns, possible psychological consequences, long-term outcomes, service integration and information needs. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, then analysed using Braun and Clarke’s six-stage reflexive thematic analysis. Transcripts were read repeatedly and coded in NVivo 14, with preliminary themes developed, discussed, revised, mapped, defined and named. Analysis was predominantly inductive, with a deductive element used to group themes according to the research questions, and the dataset was interpreted through a constructivist lens.

The recruitment email reached 17 healthcare professionals. Thirteen expressed interest and 11 completed interviews, comprising six nutrition advisors and five behavioural change advisors. Interviews ran from 34 to 62 minutes, with a mean of 46 minutes. Sample size was guided by information power rather than a fixed target. Thirteen themes emerged, organised into four clusters: knowledge and information needs, perceived benefits, concerns, and service provision considerations.

Learning from patients rather than from training

One of the more striking findings concerns where knowledge was coming from. Participants had mainly learned about injectable GLP-1 medications through patients who had purchased them privately. Most did not feel confident in their current understanding, reported little formal training, and often sought out information independently, though lack of time limited how far they could go.

That said, the baseline was not zero. All participants knew the medications could facilitate weight loss, and most recognised appetite suppression as an important mechanism, although understanding of how the drugs work varied considerably. A few had deeper knowledge of semaglutide’s physiological effects. Gastrointestinal effects were widely mentioned, including nausea, constipation and diarrhoea.

It is a gap that structured continuing professional development is well placed to close. CCH’s GLP-1RAs in Focus short course was built for professionals in exactly this position, including non-prescribers supporting people on GLP-1RA pathways who want a working grasp of the underlying physiology and pharmacology rather than a patchwork assembled from patient conversations.

Seen as a middle path, not a shortcut

Most participants held positive views and regarded injectable GLP-1 medications as a useful weight-loss tool. Several felt that early weight loss could boost patients’ confidence in their own ability to lose weight, and in turn encourage greater engagement with behavioural support.

Many framed the medications as a valuable middle ground between behavioural support and bariatric surgery, particularly for people with complex needs or those who did not want surgery. At the same time, participants were clear that the drugs were not a substitute for a patient’s own efforts. Where lifestyle change alone was achievable, it was generally the preferred route, partly because it could help people feel more in control of their own progress.

Concerns clustered around what happens next

The dominant concern was not the treatment period itself but what follows it. Most participants worried about weight regain after discontinuation, particularly where behavioural changes had not become established during treatment.

Closely linked to this was a worry about masking. Participants feared that appetite suppression could obscure emotional eating, stress eating, unhelpful habits and other behavioural patterns, making it harder to tell which changes were driven by the medication and which by behavioural support. There was also concern that successful weight loss could create a false sense of security, reduce engagement with lifestyle advice, or foster reliance on medication.

Some participants raised possible mental health risks, including disordered eating or worsening difficulties among people with eating disorders, psychological trauma or a history of self-harm. It is worth being precise here: these were concerns held by participants rather than harms they had observed, and the authors noted that current evidence does not support a causal relationship between GLP-1 medications and suicidal or self-injurious thoughts or actions.

Where behavioural support should sit in the pathway

Many participants favoured offering behavioural and lifestyle support before prescribing begins, giving time to understand individual needs and to manage expectations about what the medication can and cannot do. Almost all supported providing that help alongside treatment, though views differed on how often and for how long.

Some also argued for support during dose reduction and for a few months after treatment ends, precisely because of the regain risk they had identified. The introduction of GLP-1 prescribing into their own service was viewed by some as experimental and as a learning process, and participants anticipated that their professional roles and responsibilities would shift as a result.

What this study cannot tell us

The authors were candid about the limits. The study included 11 professionals from a single Tier 3 service that had not yet started prescribing injectable GLP-1 medications, so the findings may not generalise to other services or to professionals with direct prescribing experience. The interviewer also worked within the same service, which may have shaped how freely participants expressed their views.

What it means for practice

Taken together, the picture is of a workforce that is broadly positive about injectable GLP-1 medications and sees a clear clinical niche for them, but that is thinking hard about continuity of care. The concerns raised, weight regain after discontinuation, reduced engagement with behavioural support, masked behavioural patterns and possible mental health risks, are perceived rather than demonstrated harms, but they point to real design questions for services.

The authors conclude that further research is needed on combining injectable GLP-1 medications with interpersonal behavioural support, and on how that integration can best sustain patients over time. In the meantime, the most actionable finding may be the simplest one: the staff closest to patients wanted better information and had few structured routes to get it.

CCH insight

This study lands on something many services will recognise: the staff supporting people on GLP-1RA pathways are often the least formally trained in how these medications work, and the anxiety sits not in the prescription itself but in the months that follow it.

GLP-1RA Therapy: The Complete Programme (Ozempic, Wegovy & Mounjaro) is built around that full sequence, covering the science, safe prescribing and the long-term care that protects the result, from nutrition and lean mass through to plateaus and when to refer. Seven CPD hours, three Certificates of Completion, and the CCH Advanced Certificate in GLP-1RA Therapy on passing the capstone. Open to prescribers and non-prescribers alike.

Explore GLP-1RA Therapy: The Complete Programme →