MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164145771 · doi:10.1186/s40608-014-0019-z

Impact of an integrated obesity management system on patient’s care - research protocol

2014· article· en· W2164145771 on OpenAlexafffund
Jean‐Patrice Baillargeon, Denise St‐Cyr‐Tribble, Marianne Xhignesse, Andrew Grant, Christine Brown, Marie‐France Langlois

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Obesity · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMinistère de la SantéMinistère de la Santé et des Services sociauxUniversité de Sherbrooke
KeywordsMedicineProtocol (science)Public healthObesityManagement of obesityFamily medicineMedical emergencyAlternative medicineNursingWeight lossPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The majority of obese subjects are treated by primary care physicians (PCPs) who often feel uncomfortable with the management of obesity. In a previous study, we successfully developed, implemented and evaluated an obesity management system based on training and coaching of health professionals of family medicine groups (FMGs) by a team of experts in obesity management. Using a pre/post design, this study suggested a positive impact on health professionals' perceptions and reported obesity care. The current research project is aimed at evaluating the impact on obesity screening and care of this integrated obesity management system. We hypothesize that our program combining preceptorships with a virtual community and on-site coaching will improve: (1) management and weight loss of obese/overweight subjects treated by PCPs for hypertension, type 2 diabetes or impaired glucose tolerance; and (2) screening and initial management of obesity among a regular follow-up group of patients of PCPs who practice in FMGs. METHODS/DESIGN: Ten FMGs will be approached for a practice monitoring project and will be randomised to receive the intervention developed in our previous project or will only be provided clinical practice guidelines. In the participating FMGs, we will enrol 22 patients per FMG with weight related targeted disease and 24 patients with regular follow-up. These patients will be evaluated for the care they received regarding screening and/or management of obesity using medical chart reviews, and will fill out a questionnaire on their lifestyle and satisfaction. They will also be examined for anthropometric measures, vital signs, blood markers for chronic diseases and physical fitness. The same patients will be assessed again after 18 months. The impact of the program on health professionals will be evaluated at baseline, and at 1 year. Qualitative data will also be collected from both professional and patient participants. Direct and indirect costs and QALYs will be evaluated as indicators of cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: In the context of the dramatic increase in obesity prevalence and the low perception of PCPs' self-efficacy, providing efficient strategies to PCPs and interdisciplinary health care teams for management of obesity is crucial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00991640.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.061
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0610.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.146
GPT teacher head0.529
Teacher spread0.383 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC ObesitySame topicObesity and Health PracticesFrench-language works237,207