Availability and Accessibility of Student-Specific Weight Loss Programs and Other Risk Prevention Health Services on College Campuses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: More than one third of college students who are overweight or obese are in need of weight loss programs tailored to college students. However, the availability and accessibility of these programs is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to examine the availability and ease of access to weight loss programs for students at 10 universities with the largest undergraduate enrollment. METHODS: The 10 public universities with the largest student bodies with a mean (SD) undergraduate enrollment of 41,122 (7657) students were examined. The websites of the universities were assessed to determine the availability of weight loss programs. Services for high-risk health needs common to university campuses (ie, alcohol and other drugs, victim services, sexual health, and eating disorders) were searched. RESULTS: Of the universities searched, 3 (30%, 3/10) offered weight loss programming, however, none met the predetermined criteria. Comparatively, all schools (100%, 10/10) offered no-cost and continual enrollment programming for the other high-risk health needs. CONCLUSIONS: There are limited weight loss services available to undergraduate students compared with other university services. Collaboration between existing college health service providers is suggested for the delivery of appropriate programming for overweight and obese undergraduates wanting to lose weight.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".