Perceptions of barriers to effective obesity management in Canada: Results from the ACTION study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Obesity is a chronic disease with a significant and growing impact on Canadians. The “Awareness, Care and Treatment In Obesity MaNagement” (ACTION) Study investigated perceptions, attitudes and perceived barriers to obesity management among Canadian people with obesity (PwO), healthcare providers (HCPs) and employers. In this study adult PwO (body mass index ≥30 kg/m 2 , based on self‐reported height/weight), HCPs (physicians and allied HCPs managing PwO) and employers (≥20 employees; offering health insurance), completed online surveys between 3 August and 11 October 2017 in a cross‐sectional design. Survey respondents (N = 2545) included 2000 PwO, 395 HCPs and 150 employers. Obesity was viewed as a “chronic medical condition” by most PwO (60%), HCPs (94%) and employers (71%) and deemed to have a large impact on overall health (74%, 78%, 81%, respectively). Many PwO (74%) believed weight management was their own responsibility. While PwO (55%) reportedly knew how to manage their weight, only 10% reported maintaining ≥10% weight reduction for >1 year. Despite low success rates, the most commonly reported effective long‐term weight loss methods tried and/or recommended were “improvements in eating habits” (PwO 38%; HCP 63%) and “being more active” (PwO 39%; HCP 54%). PwO and HCPs reported very different perceptions of the quality and content of their interaction during obesity management discussions. These findings highlight the communication gaps and misunderstanding between PwO, HCPs and employers. This underscores the importance of, and need for, evidence‐based management of obesity and a collaborative approach and understanding of the complex nature of this chronic disease.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".