Preventing paediatric obesity; recommendations from a community‐based qualitative investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Childhood obesity is on the rise, and interventions targeted at pre-school-aged children are essential for the primary prevention of this disease. Physical activity programming and decreasing screen viewing may be advantageous ways to reduce the early onset of obesity. Parents' perceptions regarding effective tools and programmes to target obesity are needed to develop an efficacious programme. Ten semi-structured focus groups were conducted for this qualitative study. Two experienced moderators facilitated all focus groups which were conducted in local day cares, workplaces and play groups, frequented by parents. All focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Strategies to ensure trustworthiness of the data were employed. A heterogeneous sample of 71 parents were asked about their pre-schoolers' physical activity levels and screen viewing behaviours, in addition to their suggestions for programmes to facilitate the development of healthy habits. Parents agreed that physical activity programming was an ideal way to combat obesity in pre-schoolers. Programming suggestions included involving parents in the programme planning and operation, increasing accessibility to programmes, providing more facilities, better promotional strategies such as the use of a television commercial, and resources/ideas to engage children in the home. Parents' programming suggestions lacked discussion around addressing screen viewing as a viable way to attend to the current obesity epidemic. Parents must be made aware of programmes and resources currently available. Modifying current programmes' scheduling to include morning and afternoon sessions, and arranging for physicians to hand out resources with physical activity ideas, particularly during the winter months, is essential.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".