MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2590330224 · doi:10.2147/ppa.s123914

The Healthy Weights Initiative: the first 1,000 participants

2017· article· en· W2590330224 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mark Lemstra, Jeff Fox, Randy Klassen, Dean Dodge

Bibliographic record

VenuePatient Preference and Adherence · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: According to Statistics Canada, the number of adults who are overweight or obese rises every year in Canada. As such, it is obvious that various public policies are not working. After extensive community consultation, the Healthy Weights Initiative (HWI) started in Moose Jaw and expanded to Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. Objectives: This study aimed to determine adherence, factors affecting adherence and their impact on various health outcomes. Methods: From January 2014 to March 2015, 229 participants started the comprehensive 6-month HWI program. It was determined that having a “buddy” and signing a social support contract with three additional family members or friends were important to program adherence. As such, both policies went from being recommended to becoming mandatory. From April 2015 to August 2016, 771 additional participants started the program, allowing evaluation of the two new policies. Moreover, HWI participant adherence was compared to that of 100 new YMCA members. Results: Among the first 229 HWI participants, 79.9% completed the 6-month program. After the two new policy changes among the 771 participants, 96.1% completed the HWI program (risk ratio =1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01–1.49). In comparison, among the new YMCA regular members without supervision or assistance, 14.0% were still fully adhering to their fitness program after 6 months (RR =6.85; 95% CI: 3.88–12.10). After logistic regression, the only variable with an independent effect for not completing the HWI program was not having a spouse/partner supporting the program (odds ratio =2.31; 95% CI: 1.13–3.67). Although weight loss reductions were obtained (mean: 4.3 kg), the more significant benefits observed were health outcomes. For example, the prevalence of depressed mood reduced from 44% to 16.4% ( P =0.000). Conclusion: With two new policy changes, including a mandatory “buddy” and a signed social support contract, the HWI has become more successful at promoting program adherence. Moreover, numerous positive health outcomes have been obtained during this free, community-based initiative. Keywords: community-based, obesity, social support, program adherence

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.302
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0190.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.311
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.155 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePatient Preference and AdherenceSame topicObesity and Health PracticesFrench-language works237,207