Parents report intrapersonal, interpersonal, and environmental barriers to supporting healthy eating and physical activity among their preschoolers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is an increasing trend in childhood obesity in Canada and many preschool children are overweight or obese. The objective of this study was to explore parents' experiences and challenges in supporting healthy eating and physical activity among their preschool children. A qualitative descriptive study involving 5 focus groups was conducted. A convenience sample of 39 parents from 3 childcare centres in Hamilton, Ontario, participated. Parents were English speaking and had a child aged 2-5 years attending the childcare centre for at least 3 months. The research team read transcripts of the audio-taped sessions and used a constant comparison approach to develop themes, which involved coding comments by continually referring to previously coded comments for comparison. The social ecological model was used to organize the themes into 3 higher-level categories: (i) intrapersonal (individual): preschoolers' preferences and health; (ii) interpersonal (interactions): parents' and others' different views and practices, influence of the childcare centre, parents' lack of time, and family structure; and (iii) physical environment: accessibility of healthy foods, preschoolers with special needs, media influence, weather, lack of safety, and inaccessible resources. Parents perceived that there are various intrapersonal, interpersonal, and environmental barriers to supporting healthy eating and physical activity among their children. Program planners and health professionals can consider these barriers when developing interventions to promote healthy bodyweights among preschoolers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".