Do teen mentors improve the effectiveness of a culturally-adapted lifestyle intervention in Arab American youth? A randomized, controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Rates of overweight and obesity have been steadily increasing among Arab American youths. The current study aimed to measure the effectiveness of a translated and culturally adapted health education curriculum, Just for Kids!, for 3rd, 4th and 5th grade children delivered by trained high school aged mentors compared to the same content delivered by an adult group leader in a classroom setting. The contribution of a culturally-specific lifestyle intervention targeting parents on the effectiveness of the curriculum was also assessed.Methods: A four-group randomized controlled trial was used, which incorporated a pretest-posttest design to evaluate and compare the effects of two curriculum delivery methods. Study participants were randomly assigned to teen mentors or adult led groups.Results: Nutritional knowledge improved in all groups with the most significant increase noted in individually-mentored participants with parental involvement. Individually-mentored participants with parental involvement (n = 17) had improved intentions (mean = 1.600, p = .990) and self-efficacy (mean = -1.233, p = .946) toward being physically active (mean = 1.600, p = .990) relative to participants in the adult-led group with parental involvement (n = 26).Conclusions: Study results supported the use of teen mentors in obesity prevention among Arab American children. Improved attitudes, intentions and self-efficacy toward eating healthfully were found among all participants in this study.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".