Paediatricians' awareness of, agreement with and use of the new Canadian Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour Guidelines for children and youth zero to 17 years of age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the awareness of, agreement with and use of the new Canadian Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour Guidelines for children and youth zero to 17 years of age in a sample of Canadian paediatricians. METHODS: The findings are based on responses from 331 paediatricians across Canada who completed an online survey in February 2013. Frequencies were calculated for each question. RESULTS: Few paediatricians reported being very familiar with the physical activity (6% for the early years, and 9% for children and youth) or sedentary behaviour guidelines (5% for the early years, children and youth). When made aware of the guidelines, a large percentage strongly agreed or agreed with the physical activity (99% for the early years, and 96% for children and youth) and sedentary behaviour recommendations (96% for the early years, and 94% for children and youth). Of paediatricians who performed well-child visits, 16% and 27% reported almost always making physical activity and sedentary behaviour recommendations, respectively, to parents or caregivers of children in the early years, compared with 37% for both behaviours among children and youth. Thirty-nine per cent (for the early years) and 46% (for children and youth) of paediatricians reported it would be highly feasible to briefly explain the guidelines at a well-child visit. The most common barriers reported for recommending the guidelines were insufficient motivation or support from parents, caregivers or youth, and lack of time. CONCLUSION: To increase the use of these new evidence-informed guidelines, strategies are needed to increase paediatricians' awareness and reduce perceived barriers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".