Putting positive weight‐related conversations into practice: The pilot implementation of a Knowledge Translation Casebook
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Healthcare professionals (HCPs) play an important role in discussing weight with children and their parents but report barriers such as lack of training and supports. These barriers are especially prevalent within specialized populations such as children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). To address this, a Knowledge Translation Casebook on positive weight-related conversations was developed by a research team at a Canadian paediatric hospital. The purpose of the current pre-implementation pilot study was to explore initial acceptability and adoption of the Casebook into clinical settings. METHODS: An interactive, multimodal education workshop was created to provide HCPs with knowledge and training on how to have positive weight-related conversations with children and parents. Two workshops were conducted using the same curriculum but delivered either in-person or online. Participants were drawn from a team of clinicians at a teaching hospital whose care focuses on medication management for clients with ASD and clinicians participating in a distance learning programme on best practice care for clients with ASD. Participants completed a demographic questionnaire, workshop evaluation, and a pre-workshop and post-workshop questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize demographic, questionnaire, and survey data. Answers to open-ended questions were analysed using content analysis. RESULTS: Participants agreed that the workshop gave them a clear understanding of the Casebook's content and helped them easily navigate the Casebook. Based on raw scores, self-efficacy in having weight-related conversations seemed to increase from pre-to post-workshop, but reported weight-management clinical practice scores did not change over time. However, the small sample precluded in-depth statistical analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The Casebook was acceptable and appeared to increase self-efficacy about having weight-related conversations with children with ASD and parents. More robust implementation strategies are needed to foster the uptake of best practices in weight-related conversations into clinical practice.
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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».