Increasing Canadian paediatricians’ awareness and use of the new Canadian Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour Guidelines for ages 0 to 17 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To examine changes in the awareness, use, feasibility, and barriers associated with the Canadian Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour Guidelines for Children and Youth ages 0–17 years in a sample of Canadian paediatricians, and to assess tools/resources developed by the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS). Practicing paediatricians who were members of the CPS were invited to complete an on-line survey in February 2013. In response to survey findings, the CPS developed and promoted tools/resources to increase and improve paediatricians’ counselling of the guidelines. The CPS membership was surveyed again in September–October 2014. Findings are based on responses from 331 and 217 (23% and 16% participation rate) Canadian paediatricians who completed the survey in 2013 and 2014, respectively. No significant differences were observed for awareness, use, or feasibility associated with the physical activity or sedentary behaviour guidelines between 2013 and 2014. However, a lack of knowledge/training was reported as a barrier sometimes/often/always by paediatricians significantly less in 2014 (14%) compared to 2013 (32%). Insufficient motivation/lack of support from parents/caregivers/youth was also reported as a barrier less frequently in 2014 (64%) compared to 2013 (75%) but it was borderline non-significant (P=0.05). Only 9% of paediatricians were unaware of the new CPS tools/resources. The new tools/resources developed by the CPS appeared to reduce some barriers experienced by paediatricians in counselling families about the guidelines. However, this did not appear to translate into greater awareness or use of the guidelines. Continued tool/resource development and training initiatives may be required.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".