GLP-1 drugs may reshape obesity care, but clinicians still have questions

By Vijay Kumar MalesuReviewed by Susha Cheriyedath, M.Sc.Aug 26 2026

As weight-loss injections move into specialist care, researchers explore what frontline obesity professionals think these drugs could mean for patient support, long-term habits, and their own changing roles.

Study: Attitudes Toward Injectable GLP-1 Drugs for Obesity Treatment: A Qualitative Interview Study With Healthcare Professionals. Image Credit: Love Employee / Shutterstock

In a recent study published in the journal Obesity Science & Practice, a group of researchers explored healthcare professionals’ knowledge, perceived benefits, concerns, and information needs regarding injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) drugs for obesity management within a United Kingdom Tier 3 weight management service that had not yet begun prescribing them.

Background

One in eight people worldwide lives with obesity, highlighting the scale of a condition requiring sustained attention from health authorities. In England, weight management is organized across four tiers, from population prevention and lifestyle services to specialist multidisciplinary care and bariatric surgery.

Injectable GLP-1 drugs, including semaglutide and tirzepatide, a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide/glucagon-like peptide-1 (GIP/GLP-1) receptor agonist, are increasingly incorporated into obesity management pathways. Semaglutide is recommended for eligible patients in specialist services, while tirzepatide can also be prescribed in National Health Service (NHS) primary care. 

About the study

Healthcare professionals were recruited from a Tier 3 Weight Management service in England that provided interpersonal nutritional advice and behavioral support to patients with a body mass index (BMI) above 40 kg/m² or 35-39.9 kg/m² with a weight-related comorbidity.

Interviews were conducted from June 20 to July 19, 2024, while the service was not yet prescribing injectable GLP-1 drugs, although applications for approval were in place. Eligible participants were behavioral change advisors or nutrition advisors, and none had prescribing privileges. Staff were invited by email to complete an information sheet, an electronic consent form, a demographic questionnaire, and an interview-date selection.

The authors developed a semi-structured interview schedule and adapted 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. Researchers used Braun and Clarke’s six-stage reflexive thematic analysis. Transcripts were read repeatedly, coded in NVivo 14, and preliminary themes were developed, discussed, revised, mapped, defined, and named.

Analysis was predominantly inductive, with a deductive element used to group themes according to the research questions. The dataset was interpreted using a constructivist approach.  

The recruitment email was sent to 17 healthcare professionals; 13 expressed interest and 11 completed interviews. The sample comprised six nutrition advisors and five behavioral change advisors. Interviews lasted 34-62 minutes, with a mean duration of 46 minutes. The sample size was guided by information power.

Thirteen themes were organized into four clusters: knowledge and information needs, perceived benefits, concerns, and service provision considerations.

Participants had mainly learned about injectable GLP-1 drugs through patients who had purchased them privately. Most did not feel confident in their current understanding, reported little formal training, and often sought information independently, although lack of time limited this. 

All participants knew that the drugs could facilitate weight loss, while understanding of their mechanisms varied. Most recognized appetite suppression as an important mechanism. A few participants had deeper knowledge of semaglutide’s physiological effects. Participants mentioned gastrointestinal effects, including nausea, constipation, and diarrhea.

Most participants held positive views and regarded injectable GLP-1 drugs as a useful weight-loss tool. Some participants also felt that early weight loss could boost patients’ confidence in their ability to lose weight and encourage greater engagement with behavioral support. Many viewed the medications as a valuable middle ground between behavioral support and bariatric surgery, particularly for patients with complex needs or those who did not want surgery. Participants emphasized that the drugs were not a substitute for patients’ efforts. Lifestyle change alone was generally preferred when possible because it could help patients feel more in control.

The main concerns centered on what might happen after treatment stopped. Most participants worried about weight regain, particularly if behavioral changes had not developed during treatment.

They also feared that appetite suppression could mask emotional eating, stress eating, unhelpful habits, and other behavioral patterns, making it harder to distinguish changes associated with the medication from those resulting from behavioral support. They worried that successful weight loss could create a false sense of security, reduce engagement with lifestyle advice, or encourage reliance on medication. 

Some also expressed concerns about possible mental health risks, including disordered eating or worsening problems among patients with eating disorders, psychological trauma, or self-harm histories. However, these were participants’ concerns rather than observed harms, and the authors noted that current evidence does not support a causal relationship between GLP-1 drugs and suicidal or self-injurious thoughts or actions.

Many participants favored behavioral and lifestyle support before prescribing, allowing time to understand individual needs and manage expectations. Almost all supported providing such support alongside treatment, although views differed about its frequency and duration.

The introduction of GLP-1 prescribing into their service was viewed by some as experimental and as a learning process. Some participants also favored support during dose reduction and for a few months after treatment because of potential regain. Participants also anticipated changes in their professional roles and responsibilities.

The authors cautioned that the study included only 11 professionals from a single Tier 3 service that had not yet begun prescribing injectable GLP-1 drugs, so the findings may not generalize to other services or to healthcare professionals with direct prescribing experience. The interviewer also worked within the same service, which may have influenced how participants expressed their views.

Conclusion

Healthcare professionals viewed injectable GLP-1 drugs as useful additions to obesity treatment, particularly as a middle option between behavioral support and bariatric surgery. At the same time, they expressed concerns about weight regain after discontinuation, reduced engagement with behavioral support, masked behavioral patterns, and possible mental health risks, although these represented perceived rather than demonstrated harms.

They commonly favored lifestyle and behavior change support before and during treatment, while some also supported continued help during dose reduction and after treatment, while recognizing uncertainty about how services and professional roles should adapt. 

The findings indicate a need for further research on combining injectable GLP-1 drugs with interpersonal behavioral support and determining how such integration can best support patients over time.