Understanding paediatric patients’ attitudes toward obesity and expectations prior to entering a weight management program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This qualitative study explored attitudes toward weight management and knowledge of healthy, active living among paediatric patients referred to a weight management program. The objective of this study was to determine the emotional state and attitudes of patients entering into a paediatric weight management program. METHODS: Study participants (aged 7 to 17 years old) were recruited during clinic orientation. Semistructured interviews were conducted, audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Qualitative content analysis generated a thematic coding scheme, identifying concepts and linkages in the data. Study rigour was achieved collaboratively through an audit trail, and data triangulation. RESULTS: Fifteen patients (median age 11 years) consented to interviews. Three recurring themes emerged: emotions, motivation and learning. A total of nine subthemes were identified. Four key spheres of influence (family, peers, school and health care providers) affected the patient's outlook on obesity positively by providing support or negatively by adversely influencing their emotions and motivation. The level of individual motivation to engage in the weight management program varied. A positive outlook toward learning about obesity from school officials and health care providers emerged. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided insight regarding paediatric attitudes related to entering a weight management program. The negative emotional state and sometimes fear of the program expressed should be considered by the referring physician and by clinicians in weight management programs engaging in their care.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".