Fostering positive weight‐related conversations between health care professionals, children, and families: Development of a knowledge translation Casebook and evaluation protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health care professionals (HCPs) must communicate with children and families about weight management in a sensitive and nonstigmatizing manner. However, HCPs receive little training in weight-related communication and have requested resources, but these are scarce. This article details the development process of a knowledge translation (KT) Casebook and outlines the proposed protocol for its implementation and evaluation. METHODS: Guided by the knowledge-to-action cycle, a KT Casebook aimed at HCPs integrated findings from a comprehensive scoping review with experiential and contextual evidence gathered through stakeholder workshops to provide guidance to HCPs communicating with children and families around weight-related issues. It was structured around five questions: (a) Who should participate in weight-related discussions? (b) When and how should the topic of weight be broached? (c) What terminology should be used? (d) How can HCPs enhance family engagement in weight-related discussions? (e) What specific communication techniques have been recommended? Checklists, evidence summaries, case studies, sentence starters, simulations, and other resources were clustered under each question. A dissemination strategy was developed using KT best practices and a pilot evaluation protocol designed. RESULTS: The Casebook was launched in November 2017 and has been presented at pediatric rehabilitation and obesity conferences. A communication strategy targeted multidisciplinary experts and organizations with weight management within their scope of practice. These efforts have resulted in 2,497 downloads across five countries to date. CONCLUSIONS: A practical and engaging KT Casebook was created to help foster positive weight-related conversations between HCPs, children, and their families. A pilot implementation study examining the impact of the Casebook on clinical practice will provide critical information for embedding the Casebook in a range of health care settings.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".