Targeting Students, Teachers and Parents in a Wellness-Based Prevention Program in Schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the effectiveness of a wellness-based prevention program on elementary and junior high students' body image, personal attitudes, and eating behaviors. Group differences in measures of student attitudes and eating behaviors are examined to determine the effect of targeting different participant combinations (students, parents, and teachers) in 10 groups. For elementary schools, student participants consisted of control (no intervention) (n = 36), student only (n = 81), student/parent (n = 124), student/parent/teacher (n = 103), and parent/teacher (n = 149). For junior high schools, student participants consisted of control (n = 143), student only (n=215), student/parent (n=65), student/parent/teacher (n = 14), and parent/teacher (n = 177). Overall, complete data was available for 1,095 students, 114 parents and 92 teachers. Results indicate that self-concept and eating attitudes and behaviors were positively affected by participation in the program. For example, in elementary schools posttest scores on the behavior subscale of the self-concept measure are significantly higher for the student/parent/teacher group than for the control group. Results indicate that a one-time wellness-based eating disorder prevention program with students, which have in the past shown to be minimally effective, may be more effective in changing attitudes and behaviors when teachers and parents are involved.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".