Parental perceptions regarding lifestyle interventions for obese children and adolescents with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) affects 30% of obese children globally. The main treatment for NAFLD is to promote gradual weight loss through lifestyle modification. Very little is known regarding parental perspectives about the barriers and facilitators that influence the ability to promote healthy lifestyle behaviours in children with NAFLD. OBJECTIVES: To explore and describe parental perspectives regarding barriers to and facilitators of implementing lifestyle modification in children with NAFLD. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach, including qualitative methodology (focus groups) and validated questionnaires (Lifestyle Behaviour Checklist), was used to assess parental perceptions regarding barriers to and facilitators of lifestyle change in parents of children with healthy body weights (control parents) and in parents of children with NAFLD (NAFLD parents). RESULTS: NAFLD parents identified more problem behaviours related to food portion size and time spent in nonsedentary physical activity, and lower parental self-efficacy than parents of controls (P<0.05). Major barriers to lifestyle change cited by NAFLD parents were lack of time, self-motivation and role modelling of healthy lifestyle behaviours. In contrast, control parents used a variety of strategies to elicit healthy lifestyle behaviours in their children including positive role modelling, and inclusion of the child in food preparation and meal purchasing decisions, and perceived few barriers to promoting healthy lifestyles. Internet sources were the main form of nutrition information used by parents. CONCLUSIONS: Lifestyle modification strategies focused on promoting increased parental self-efficacy and parental motivation to promote healthy lifestyle behaviour are important components in the treatment of obese children with NAFLD.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".