Tackling Childhood Overweight: Parental Perceptions of Stakeholders’ Roles in a Community-Based Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. Collaborative efforts among communities, schools, parents, and health professionals are needed to prevent childhood obesity, which touches one third of Canadian youth. The purpose of this case study was to obtain parents’ experience and perceptions about stakeholder roles in a multidisciplinary community-based intervention aiming to tackle childhood overweight. Methods. Data were collected from semistructured interviews with 10 parents following their participation in a community-based program designed to help families with overweight children adopt a healthier lifestyle. Results and Discussion. All parents preferred a multidisciplinary health team to monitor their children’s health. They expect that a physician or a pediatrician could diagnose overweight, explain results to parents, and refer families to resources. The team could also include professionals from health and education such as nutritionists/dietitians, nurses, physical education teachers, psychologists, kinesiologists, and social workers. Parents’ own perceived role would consist of instructing and reinforcing their children about healthy behaviors, role modeling for a healthy lifestyle, and seeking for professional help when needed. Conclusion. Parents involved in a support group with overweight child consider their own role as crucial to help changing their family lifestyle. They also prefer a multidisciplinary team that can address different aspects of overweight/obesity. However, the physician was perceived as having the central role in mobilizing a group of stakeholders around youth with overweight/obese, including the parents. A further step would be to understand barriers and facilitators to collaboration among health professionals in childhood overweight prevention and treatment.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".