Dyslipidemia management in overweight or obese adolescents: A mixed-methods clinical trial of motivational interviewing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lifestyle management for dyslipidemic adolescents often occurs in the context of family-centered care, which necessitates adaptation of counseling strategies. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of motivational interviewing for lifestyle behavior change for dyslipidemic adolescents in a dyad with a parent versus alone. METHODS: A total number of 32 adolescents were randomized 1:1 to receive a series of motivational interviewing sessions either together with a parent or alone for a 6-month intervention, with both quantitative and qualitative assessment of outcomes. RESULTS: Both groups were similar at baseline. Following the intervention, there were no significant differences between groups in physical, laboratory, lifestyle or psychosocial measures, except for a reduction in dietary fats/sugars (p = 0.02) and in screen time (p = 0.02) in the alone group. When both groups were combined, significant reductions at 6 months were noted for body mass index (p < 0.001), waist circumference (p < 0.001), total cholesterol (p < 0.001), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (p < 0.001), triglycerides (p = 0.01), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (p < 0.001), fasting insulin (p = 0.01), and homeostatic model (p = 0.02). Reduced screen time and increased fruit and vegetable intake were also noted for both groups combined. These changes were also reflected in self-efficacy (p = 0.004), self-esteem (p = 0.03), and improvement in quality of life measures. Interview data provided insights into the utility and acceptability of the motivational interviewing intervention. CONCLUSION: Motivational interviewing was an efficient strategy for inspiring healthy lifestyle and physiological changes among adolescents in both groups. Family centered pediatric approaches should consider the autonomy and individual preferences of the adolescent prior to counseling.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".