Obesity education for front-line healthcare providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To assess the effect of an interprofessional educational activity on professional skills, attitudes, and perceived challenges toward obesity management among front-line healthcare providers. METHODS: A one-day interprofessional obesity education activity was organized for healthcare providers across various disciplines. All participants were invited to complete an anonymous survey pre- and post-event, and at six-month post-event. The survey was created based on a comprehensive list of perceived skills, professional attitudes and challenges toward obesity intervention compiled from existing literature. RESULTS: Sixty-seven healthcare providers completed the survey pre- and post-event. Participants reported increases in professional skills such as their ability to assess weight (p = 0.04), to address weight management issues (p < 0.001), to teach/motivate patients toward physical activity (p < 0.001) and healthy eating practices (p = 0.001), to use behavior modification techniques (p < 0.001), and to deal with family issues (p < 0.001). Professional attitudes: practitioners felt more educated/competent in obesity management (P < 0.001), learned where to refer patients (p < 0.001), were more comfortable in discussing obesity in managing obesity (p < 0.001), were less likely to avoid the topic (p = 0.004) and felt less frustrated with the low success rate (p = 0.030). Enhancement in professional attitudes remained 6 months after the event. Improvements were mainly associated with male gender, younger age, fewer years of professional practice and healthcare professionals other than physicians. No statistically significant changes in perceived challenges were found after the educational event. CONCLUSION: Results of this study showed that this interprofessional learning activity contributed to the improvement of professional skills and attitudes of front-line healthcare providers caring for those who are obese or at risk for obesity. The positive results of this interprofessional learning activity aligns with the training needs identified by healthcare practitioners in previous studies, and suggest that this design and content could be used to guide future educational programming in the care of obese people.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".