Motivational Interviewing to Enhance Self-Efficacy and Promote Weight Loss in Overweight and Obese Adolescents: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of Motivational Interviewing (MI) as an intervention for promoting self-efficacy and weight loss in a sample of overweight and obese youth. METHODS: /Design 40 participants (aged 10-18 years) were randomly assigned to control (social skills training) or treatment (MI) group. Both groups received individual therapy (~30 min/month) in addition to usual care of diet/exercise counseling. Pre- and post- (at 6 months follow-up) variables included measures of self-efficacy and anthropometrics. RESULTS: Although significant between-group differences were not found, individuals in the MI group attended more sessions. Overall, participants in both groups showed significant increases in self-efficacy and a trend of decreased body mass index z-scores. CONCLUSIONS: Health benefits from participation in individual therapy may have been accrued; however, specific benefits attributable to MI were limited. Findings suggest that more than one type of counseling intervention (i.e., MI and social skills training) may be beneficial when providing integrative treatment for obese youth.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".