A needs assessment for obesity-related anticipatory guidance in the paediatric emergency department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of Canadian childhood obesity has been increasing, resulting in a call for improved prevention efforts and anticipatory guidance. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate interest in obesity-related anticipatory guidance in a paediatric emergency department. METHODS: Between September 2005 and September 2006, parents or patients older than 14 years of age were approached at the emergency department of the Children's Hospital (London, Ontario) to complete a survey. The survey compiled demographic data and asked questions regarding self-perceived weight status, use of dieting and/or exercise for weight loss, desire for nutrition and/or exercise information, and interest in receiving anticipatory guidance related to obesity. RESULTS: Two hundred people completed the survey; the vast majority (92%) of respondents were parents. The mean (+/- SD) age of the children was 12.6+/-3.9 years. Forty-one per cent of the respondents indicated an interest in further information on obesity (95% CI 34% to 48%). Fifty-two per cent of respondents considered themselves overweight or obese (95% CI 45% to 59%), and 52% reported someone in their family who was dieting, exercising or both to lose weight. Parents who stated that their children considered themselves to be overweight or obese were significantly less interested in anticipatory guidance than parents who did not believe that their children considered themselves to be overweight or obese (67% versus 90%, respectively; P=0.009). DISCUSSION: Many patients in the paediatric emergency department desire information on nutrition and exercise. Further research into risk-stratified targeting of patients and parents are needed to help identify good candidates for anticipatory guidance.
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 | 0.010 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".