Providers’ Involvement of Parents, Families, and Family Dynamics in Youth Weight Management Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family-based interventions are the current standard for the treatment of pediatric obesity, yet the details of how providers are involving family members, and the barriers to family involvement, are largely unknown. The objective of this study is to describe how providers in pediatric weight management (PWM) involve family members, identify barriers to family involvement, and how they address challenging family dynamics. A cross-sectional survey was administered to PWM centers/clinics and their providers in the United States and Canada. Analyses included descriptive statistics at the participant (N = 71) and clinic/center (N = 47) levels. Providers indicated that they assessed patients and parents' perspectives, not other family members, motivation, weight/medical history, dietary and activity behaviors, goals, and barriers. Providers also reported that they asked patients' perspectives about their parents' aforementioned behaviors, and siblings' dietary, activity, and sedentary/screen time behaviors, and weight/medical history. Providers reported that the balance between the patient and parent changed as children aged, with more focus given to the child, and less to the parent, as the child grew older. The most frequent barrier to involving family members in treatment included challenging family dynamics. The most challenging family dynamics were divorce/separation and parent-child conflicts. Providers often refer to and rely on mental/behavioral health providers to address barriers to family involvement and challenging family dynamics. Further research is needed to determine adequate provider training and comfort in dealing with family dynamics in treatment, and ways to mitigate barriers to involving families in PWM.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".