Interprofessional Group Intervention for Parents of Children Age 3 and Younger With Feeding Difficulties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Feeding difficulties are common with an estimated prevalence of 25%-45% in normally developing children. Clinicians and researchers emphasize the need for timely and effective treatment because a proportion of children develop failure to thrive with possible long-term impairments. Interprofessional assessment and treatment has emerged as an optimal approach to reduce parental anxiety and increase children's acceptance of a wider variety of foods. METHODS: Participants, including 30 children (mean age of 26 ± 8.2 months) meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria and their families, attended a program consisting of 4 sessions, and a 1-month follow-up. Parents completed the Behavioral Pediatrics Feeding Assessment Scale pre- and posttreatment and Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS). RESULTS: Paired t tests indicate that the composite scores for frequency of feeding difficulties were on average significantly less posttreatment compared with pretreatment, and composite scores for frequency of parental problems with feeding were also significantly less posttreatment. These results were reflected in the composite scores for both feeding difficulties and parental problems with feeding on child- and parent-related items. The median for the GAS was +2 (range, -2 to +2). Written parental responses in the GAS reflected 2 major themes: satisfaction with the program and a desire for more individualized attention. CONCLUSIONS: These results offer preliminary evidence suggesting that an interprofessionally led parent group, with contributions from clinical nutrition, occupational therapy, psychology, and speech-language pathology professionals, is effective in treating young children with feeding difficulties.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".