MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2328159731 · doi:10.1111/cob.12133

Challenges in interdisciplinary weight management in primary care: lessons learned from the 5<scp>A</scp>s <scp>T</scp>eam study

2016· article· en· W2328159731 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Obesity · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsCanadian Obesity NetworkUniversity of Alberta HospitalUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersAlberta Innovates - Health Solutions
KeywordsMedicineIntervention (counseling)NursingWeight managementHealth careQualitative researchRandomized controlled trialFamily medicineCollaborative CarePrimary careWeight lossObesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increasingly, research is directed at advancing methods to address obesity management in primary care. In this paper we describe the role of interdisciplinary collaboration, or lack thereof, in patient weight management within 12 teams in a large primary care network in Alberta, Canada. Qualitative data for the present analysis were derived from the 5As Team (5AsT) trial, a mixed-method randomized control trial of a 6-month participatory, team-based educational intervention aimed at improving the quality and quantity of obesity management encounters in primary care practice. Participants (n = 29) included in this analysis are healthcare providers supporting chronic disease management in 12 family practice clinics randomized to the intervention arm of the 5AsT trial including mental healthcare workers (n = 7), registered dietitians (n = 7), registered nurses or nurse practitioners (n = 15). Participants were part of a 6-month intervention consisting of 12 biweekly learning sessions aimed at increasing provider knowledge and confidence in addressing patient weight management. Qualitative methods included interviews, structured field notes and logs. Four common themes of importance in the ability of healthcare providers to address weight with patients within an interdisciplinary care team emerged, (i) Availability; (ii) Referrals; (iii) Role perception and (iv) Messaging. However, we find that what was key to our participants was not that these issues be uniformly agreed upon by all team members, but rather that communication and clinic relationships support their continued negotiation. Our study shows that firm clinic relationships and deliberate communication strategies are the foundation of interdisciplinary care in weight management. Furthermore, there is a clear need for shared messaging concerning obesity and its treatment between members of interdisciplinary teams.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.003

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 head0.276
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.232 · 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