Developing and Pilot Testing the Readiness and Motivation Interview for Families in Pediatric Weight Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical acumen is often used to assess families' motivation prior to initiating pediatric obesity management due to a lack of available tools. The purpose of this pilot study was to (i) develop and (ii) pilot test the "Readiness and Motivation Interview for Families" (RMI-Family) in pediatric weight management. We conducted 5 focus groups with parents (n = 15), youth with obesity (n = 11), and health care providers (n = 8) to explore perceptions of barriers to making healthy behaviour changes, which led to the creation of the RMI-Family as a semi-structured interview. Five domains (treat foods, overeating, emotional eating, total physical activity, and screen time) emerged from the focus groups to inform the development of the RMI-Family, which was then pilot tested with a sample of youth with obesity and their parents (n = 11 dyads). Interviewers administered the RMI-Family to youth (age 12.8 ± 1.7 years; body mass index [BMI] z-score: 2.71 ± 0.43) and parents (age 47.1 ± 3.7 years; BMI: 33.5 ± 10.1 kg/m(2)). The RMI-Family was feasible to administer, easily understood by families, and may be a useful tool for assessing families' motivation. Research is underway to determine the psychometric properties and utility of the RMI-Family in predicting clinical outcomes in pediatric weight management.
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 | 0.027 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".