Parents’ perceptions of obesity prevention during infancy: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infancy appears to be a critical period for establishing a person's weight set point. It remains unclear which interventions during infancy may be most effective in preventing later obesity and which ones are most acceptable to parents. The aim of this study was to examine the attitudes of parents of children aged 2 years and under toward different obesity prevention messages and their preferences with regard to these messages. METHODS: Using a qualitative research design, we conducted semistructured interviews followed by a focus group. Parents of children under 2 years of age were purposively recruited from 2 communities in British Columbia, Canada, and asked for their opinions about various health promotion messages relating to obesity prevention. A theoretical thematic analysis was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Thirty-three parents participated in the study. Participants reported that many of the current recommendations (no screen time, no sugary beverages) are unrealistic, unclear and inconsistent, making them difficult to follow and causing parents to feel guilty; they had a more positive response to the feeding roles message. Parents noted the importance of starting education early and targeting the broader community. INTERPRETATION: Several important and interesting themes were identified in this study, which increases our understanding of parents' attitudes toward and preferences for the messages presented. Obesity prevention information for today's busy parents needs to be realistic, supportive and timely.
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 | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".