<i>Reasons for Non-Return to</i>A Pediatric Weight Management Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Obesity in childhood has become a major public health concern because of increasing rates of overweight and obesity. To address this epidemic, effective dietetic interventions must be developed. We examined parent/caregiver and/or patient reasons for not returning for follow-up clinical care in the Alberta Health Services, Edmonton Area's Nutrition Services Pediatric Weight Management Program (NS PWMP) in Edmonton, Alberta. METHODS: A qualitative telephone survey was developed to identify reasons for non-return to the NS PWMP. Face validity was evaluated by five pediatric registered dietitians (RDs). RESULTS: The survey was administered to parents/caregivers of children or adolescents aged 2.5 to 14.2 years (n=21) who attended fewer than two appointments in the NS PWMP. The major reasons for non-return included physical barriers (scheduling, parking, location), organizational barriers (clinic environment), and program educational content (type of educational tools, the focus of lifestyle education on the individual rather than the family, physical activity interventions, and appropriateness of information for the parent or child). CONCLUSIONS: Development and delivery of effective dietetic interventions for children and adolescents at risk of overweight and obesity may be achieved by emphasizing skill building within the child and the family. Analysis of child and family feedback on clinical RD services is critical to optimization of care in a pediatric weight management program.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".