Canadian Physicians' Use of Antiobesity Drugs and Their Referral Patterns to Weight Management Programs or Providers: The SOCCER Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antiobesity pharmacotherapy and programs/providers that possess weight management expertise are not commonly used by physicians. The underlying reasons for this are not known. We performed a cross-sectional study in 33 Canadian medical practices (36 physicians) examining 1788 overweight/obese adult patients. The frequency of pharmacotherapy use and referral for further diet, exercise, behavioral management and/or bariatric surgery was documented. If drug treatment or referral was not made, reasons were documented by choosing amongst preselected categories. Logistic regression models were used to identify predictors of antiobesity drug use. No single antiobesity management strategy was recommended by physicians in more than 50% of patients. Referral was most common for exercise (49% of cases) followed by dietary advice (46%), and only 5% of eligible patients were referred for bariatric surgery. Significant predictors of initiating/continuing pharmacotherapy were male sex (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.52-0.94), increasing BMI (1.02; 95% CI 1.01-1.03), and private drug coverage (1.78; 95% CI 1.39-2.29). "Not considered" and "patient refusal" were the main reasons for not initiating further weight management. We conclude that both physician and patient factors act as barriers to the use of weight management strategies and both need to be addressed to increase uptake of these interventions.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it