“Fat is really a four‐letter word”: Exploring weight‐related communication best practices in children with and without disabilities and their caregivers
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Health care professionals play a critical role in preventing and managing childhood obesity, but the American Academy of Pediatrics recently stressed the importance of using sensitive and nonstigmatizing language when discussing weight with children and families. Although barriers to weight-related discussions are well known, there are few evidence-based recommendations around communication best practices. Disability populations in particular have previously been excluded from work in this area. The objectives were to present the findings of a recent scoping review to children with and without disabilities and their caregivers for their reactions; and to explore the experiences and perceptions of the children and their caregivers regarding weight-related communication best practices. METHODS: Focus group and individual interviews were conducted with 7-18-year olds with and without disabilities and their caregivers. The interview guide was created using findings from a recent scoping review of weight-related communication best practices. Inductive thematic analysis was employed. RESULTS: Eighteen children (9 boys; 7 children with disabilities) and 21 caregivers (17 mothers, 1 step-father, 3 other caregivers) participated in 8 focus group and 7 individual interviews. Preferred communication strategies were similar across those with and without disabilities, although caregivers of children with autism spectrum disorder endorsed more concrete approaches. Discussions emphasizing growth and health were preferred over weight and size. Strengths-based, solution-focused approaches for weight conversations were endorsed, although had not been widely experienced. CONCLUSION: Perceptions of weight-related communication were similar across stakeholder groups, regardless of children's disability or weight status. Participants generally agreed with the scoping review recommendations, suggesting that they apply broadly across different settings and populations; however, tailoring them to specific circumstances is critical. Empirical evaluations are still required to examine the influence of weight-related communication on clinically important outcomes, including behaviour change and family engagement in care.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».