Interventions for prevention of childhood obesity in primary care: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preventing childhood obesity is a public health priority, and primary care is an important setting for early intervention. Authors of a recent national guideline have identified a need for effective primary care interventions for obesity prevention and that parent perspectives on interventions are notably absent from the literature. Our objective was to determine the perspectives of primary care clinicians and parents of children 2-5 years of age on the implementation of an obesity prevention intervention within team-based primary care to inform intervention implementation. METHODS: We conducted focus groups with interprofessional primary care clinicians (n = 40) and interviews with parents (n = 26). Participants were asked about facilitators and barriers to, and recommendations for implementing a prevention program in primary care. Data were recorded and transcribed, and we used directed content analysis to identify major themes. RESULTS: Barriers existed to addressing obesity-related behaviours in this age group and included a gap in well-child primary care between ages 18 months and 4-5 years, lack of time and sensitivity of the topic. Trust and existing relationships with primary care clinicians were facilitators to program implementation. Offering separate programs for parents and children, and addressing both general parenting topics and obesity-related behaviours were identified as desirable. INTERPRETATION: Despite barriers to addressing obesity-related behaviours within well-child primary care, both clinicians and parents expressed interest in interventions in primary care settings. Next steps should include pilot studies to identify feasible strategies for intervention implementation.
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 | 0.024 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".