Experiences of those Taking Part in the BeeZee Bodies Family-Based Weight Management Intervention: A Qualitative Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The need for effective community, child weight management interventions continues. The BeeZee Bodies (BZB) family-based child weight management programme for 7-11-year-olds and 12-15–year-olds has been developed iteratively over five years, with quantitative and qualitative evaluations refining the programmes. The aim of this study was to present the experiences and opinions of those taking part in BZB programmes as part of a real world evaluation. Three focus groups, following a semi-structured protocol, were conducted with 20 participants (15 parents, 5 adolescents) 3 months post-intervention. Analyses were thematic, iterative and underpinned by Grounded Theory. Two themes emerged; (1) programme contents, (2) social interactions, with each sub-divided. Parents described increased appreciation of physical activity and dietary components, improvements in parenting and good relationships with personnel. A wide range of positive personal outcomes and changes within the family were perceived by parents and adolescents including: changes in physical activity take-up, eating habits, portion sizes, and an improved understanding of parenting an overweight child. The parenting skills element further enhanced the social cohesion fostered through attendance. There were opportunities to build new friendships for both parents and adolescents, and for parents to interact with their offspring in a different context, all of which supported behaviour change. The BZB programme was viewed by participants as successful and delivered by engaging personnel. Key strengths were social cohesion generated by including parenting sessions and inclusiveness of the physical activities on offer. BZB has been refined in response to qualitative evaluations and reviews and this process continues.
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 | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".