Perspectives of Pediatric Residents and Faculty Mentors on a Web-Based Reflective Portfolio in a Residency Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DESIgN/METhODS: A previously validated questionnaire on behavioural intentions was adapted to the domain of childhood obesity counselling.The categories of questions (rated on a 7-point Likert-scale) included: baseline practice, beliefs, attitude, external referent, intention, and perceived behavioural control.All pediatric residents training in our program at the time of our study were eligible to complete this anonymous selfadministered questionnaire.We calculated mean ± standard deviation scores of each category of questions for all residents and for each level of training.RESulTS: Thirty-nine (39/42) pediatric residents participated in this study.All residents reported that in their continuity clinic they either "Often" (15%) or "Always" (85%) measured and plotted height and weight.However, only 29% reported "Often" measuring and plotting Body Mass Index (BMI) and none, reported "Always".The overall mean score for intention was high (6.2±0.7)but for perceived behavioural control the score was just above neutral (4.7±0.8).The mean score for beliefs was 5.35±0.79;attitude, 5.72±0.97;and external referent, 5.6±0.94.There is a trend towards increasing perceived behavioural control scores with years or residency training (year 1, 4.3±0.8;year 2, 4.6±0.7,year 3, 5.0±0.5;year 4, 5.3±0.9).Scores for the other category of questions were similar across all levels of training.CONCluSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study describing the behavioural intentions of pediatric residents regarding childhood obesity counselling.We found that BMI is not routinely measured in the clinical practice of pediatric residents.A possible barrier could be a low perceived behavioural control in providing obesity counselling.Theses results could help guide intervention programs aiming to improve the residents' practice towards counselling on this major health issue.
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 | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".