The impact of child and adolescent obesity treatment interventions on physical activity: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Efforts to treat obesity in childhood and adolescence would benefit from a greater understanding of evidence-based strategies to modify physical activity behaviour. A systematic review was conducted to examine the impact of child and adolescent obesity treatment interventions on physical activity. Studies included were randomized controlled trials or controlled trials, with overweight and obese youth (aged < 18 years), which reported statistical analysis of free-living physical activity at pretreatment and post-treatment. Two independent reviewers assessed each study for methodological quality. Seventeen child and three adolescent studies were retrieved, half of which were conducted in the USA. Studies were characterized by small samples of limited cultural and economic diversity. Fifteen studies reported an increase in at least one physical activity outcome at post-test or follow-up. Overall, study quality was rated as low (child median score = 3/10, range = 0-9; adolescent median score = 3/10, range = 2-5) with three child studies classified as high quality (>or=6/10). Research evaluating the effect of child and adolescent obesity treatment trials on physical activity is limited in both quantity and quality. Studies testing innovative, theoretically driven treatment approaches that use robust methodologies are required to better understand generalizable approaches for promoting physical activity participation among obese youth.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".