Letters to the Editor
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
18 September 2006 Dear Editor, LOOKING OUT FOR OVERWEIGHT/OBESITY IN AUSTRALIAN PRESCHOOLERS: WHO’S ACTUALLY DOING IT? Prevalence of overweight/obesity has risen dramatically in Australian pre-schoolers, topping 20% by 2004.1 The period before school entry may be an important opportunity for early intervention, before comorbidities emerge. Despite this rising epidemic, it is clear that major child health providers including general practitioners2 and large children’s hospitals3,4 are neither systematically nor effectively addressing the issue. The only other services universally available for pre-schoolers’ health care in several Australian states are the community maternal and child nursing services. We surveyed metropolitan Victorian Maternal and Child Health (M&CH) nurses regarding their routine anthropometric practice for 2- to 5-year-old children and perceived role in managing childhood overweight. In February 2006, surveys were completed by 175 of a convenience sample of just under 200 M&CH nurses attending one of three annual professional development conferences in Melbourne, Victoria, which all M&CH nurses are encouraged to attend. Respondents’ M&CH experience ranged from <5 to >20 years. Most training in basic anthropometry (70%) had occurred during the M&CH training course, often many years earlier, and >20% reported having received no anthropometric training. All routinely weighed and measured attending children. Most (64%) scales had been calibrated within the preceding year, and 62% were over 5 years old. Height measures tended to be old and rarely checked; 23% reported using stand-alone stadiometers, 63% pull-down tapes (which need regular checking), and the remainder were using techniques likely to be inaccurate. Although 95% recorded height and weight measurements and 80% also plotted them on percentile charts, none used body mass index (BMI) charts, only 12% reported calculating child BMI, and only 22% knew how to calculate BMI correctly. There was no consensus on the prevalence of overweight and obesity. Some nurses reported seeing few or no overweight/obese children while others thought half of all their clients were affected. Although more than 80% felt very/quite competent broaching and discussing a child’s overweight, only half felt very/quite competent regarding making a difference to a child’s weight. These findings closely resemble our previous findings for general practitioners and major children’s hospitals. Clearly, the 2003 National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines5, recommending routine use of BMI as the measure for overweight surveillance, in Australian children are a long way from reality in all major primary care sectors. Substantial, sustained and systematic investments are required for primary care to become an effective player in state or national initiatives to address established overweight/obesity in pre-schoolers.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,025 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,013 | 0,011 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,067 | 0,042 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».