Access to Multidisciplinary Care for Pediatric Weight Management: Exploring Perspectives of the Health Care Team within Canada and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In Canada and the United States, most families referred for pediatric weight management services do not start treatment. Of families who initiate care, many discontinue before the program ends. Parents and youth have reported difficulties in accessing services as an important barrier to starting or completing programming. The purpose of this study was to understand barriers and identify potential solutions related to access to care from the perspective of health care team members from Canada and the United States. Methods: Qualitative description method guided the study design. Participants were health care team members, purposefully recruited through Canadian and US-based pediatric weight management program registries. Telephone interviews were conducted with participants between February and May 2017. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using content analysis. Results: Eighteen individuals from 16 sites participated (n = 8 Canada, n = 8 United States). Access barriers and potential solutions were related to: (1) referral and eligibility, (2) wait lists and program capacity, (3) logistics and costs, and (4) stigma and weight bias. Barriers were similar between Canadian and US sites, with the exception of cost-related barriers. Conclusions: Health care providers from Canada and the United States reported multiple societal, organizational, service, and family-level barriers to accessing multidisciplinary pediatric weight management care. Proposed solutions suggest that service providers can play a key role alongside families to improve access to appropriate care. Further research is needed to demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of proposed solutions.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".