Health Care Providers’ Perspectives on Family Compliance and Behavior Change in a Childhood Obesity Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Evidence suggests that children and adolescents growing up in low-income families and those with underrepresented ethnocultural backgrounds tend to have high prevalence rates of obesity and more difficulty adhering to childhood obesity interventions. However, less is known about how intergenerational, family-based approaches to lifestyle interventions for childhood obesity support sustained behavior change. Aims. The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of health care providers regarding family adherence and behavior change in a childhood obesity program that served ethnoculturally diverse and low-income families. Method. Semistructured in-person interviews were conducted with 18 providers at one of three hospitals participating in a Canadian family-based childhood obesity program. Data were thematically analyzed using a constant comparative approach. Results. The following key themes emerged as challenges from the provider’s perspective for family adherence and behavior modification in the childhood obesity program: divergent views about obesity, complicated lives and logistical priorities, parental role modeling, and intergenerational tensions. Discussion and Conclusion. This examination of providers’ perspectives on family adherence and behavior modification relevant to the management of childhood obesity highlight the importance of tailoring childhood obesity programs to the complex and diverse needs of families from diverse backgrounds. Recommendations include methods of service delivery that address logistical challenges and are better suited to extended families, particularly grandparents.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".