Should public health interventions aimed at reducing childhood overweight and obesity be gender-focused?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Overweight in childhood is a major public health concern that calls for immediate preventative action. An increasing number of reports suggest that gender specific approaches to prevention may be more effective. However, there is a paucity of information to guide gender-sensitive health promotion and population health interventions for the prevention of overweight in childhood. In the present study, we sought to determine gender-differentials in overweight and underlying behaviors, nutrition and physical activity, among pre-adolescents in Alberta, Canada, to inform the discussion on gender-focused interventions for chronic disease prevention. METHODS: In 2008, we surveyed 3421 grade five students and their parents of 148 randomly selected schools. Students completed the Harvard food frequency questionnaire, questions on physical activities, and had their height and weight measured. Parents completed questions on socio-economic background and child's lifestyle. We applied multilevel regression methods to assess gender differentials in overweight, nutrition and physical activity. RESULTS: Overall, the prevalence of overweight was slightly higher among boys (29.1%) than girls (27.9%) with more pronounced differences in towns and urban geographies. Boys reported to be much more physically active relative to girls (OR = 2.12, 95% CI: 1.73-2.60). Diets of boys, relative to those of girls, reportedly constituted more fat and were less likely to meet the recommendation of 6 daily servings of vegetables and fruits (OR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.71-0.93). CONCLUSION: Our findings confirm the existence of gender differences in physical activity and nutrition, and support gender-focused health promotion whereby priority is given to physical activity among girls and to healthy eating among boys.
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 | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".