Participants’ Perceptions of “C.H.A.M.P. Families”: A Parent-Focused Intervention Targeting Paediatric Overweight and Obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Recently, our team implemented a 13-week group-based intervention for parents of children with obesity (“C.H.A.M.P. Families”). The primary objective of this study was to explore, qualitatively, parents’ perspectives of their experiences in and influence of C.H.A.M.P. Families, as well as their recommendations for future paediatric obesity treatment interventions. Methods: Twelve parents (seven mothers, five fathers/step-fathers) representing seven children (four girls, three boys) with obesity participated in one of two focus groups following the intervention. Focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim and data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Results: Findings showed that parents perceived their participation in C.H.A.M.P. Families to be a positive experience. Participants highlighted several positive health-related outcomes for children, families, and parents. Parents also underscored the importance and positive impact of the group environment, specific educational content, and additional program components such as free child-minding. Recommendations for future interventions were also provided, including greater child involvement and more practical strategies. Finally, parents identified several barriers including socioenvironmental issues, time constraints, and parenting challenges. Conclusions: Researchers developing family-based childhood obesity interventions should consider the balance of parent and child involvement, as well as emphasize group dynamics strategies and positive family communication.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".