Parents’ perceptions and attitudes on childhood obesity: A Q‐methodology study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate parents of young children for their perceptions on the causes of obesity, the impact of childhood obesity on health, and the barriers to successful prevention of childhood obesity. DATA SOURCES: The target population included parents who attended a clinic for their well-baby check-up. The study was conducted in two phases. Using Q-methodology, 33 parents were classified into two groups representing two viewpoints: "confident in delivering healthy nutrition" and "family physical activity focused." CONCLUSION: This work indicates that parents have varying foci on causation of obesity, and differ in focus on nutrition and physical activity. Most of the parents in this study were aware of healthy nutrition, and about one third of them believed in the benefits of physical activity for children and did not see being overweight or obese as a barrier to physical activity. The first group was confident in being able to deliver healthy nutrition to their family, and the second group was characterized by a focus on physical activity and its role in childhood obesity. Both groups agreed that exercising and sports are very important to a child's health status. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Nurse practitioners have a unique role in the health system and are one of the best facilitators to deliver health messages to the public; thus, they are able to educate parents and increase their awareness about the causes and consequences of childhood obesity.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".