A Qualitative Study Exploring Healthy Eating and Physical Activity in Families with Young Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Overweight and obesity in childhood affects health long-term. Parent attitudes and behaviours play major roles in their child’s weight despite no consensus on appropriate and effective family-focused interventions to successfully tackle childhood obesity. This research aims to explore caregiver perceptions, attitudes, and behaviours around children’s diet, exercise, and weight in East Sussex. In-depth qualitative interviews with mothers, fathers, and grandparents of children aged 2-11 years were conducted. Caregivers wanted to influence their children’s diet and exercise habits but were unable due to perceived and actual barriers. Barriers included cost, time, and a lack of control over food choices as children aged. Moreover, caregivers admitted to providing unhealthy sweets and snacks to please their children. While caregivers openly discussed their own weight concerns, they were less likely to discuss concerns about their children’s or grandchildren’s weight. When asked about the ideal amount of exercise, caregivers found it easy to describe a regime for adults but did not know the ideal amount of exercise for children. Many caregivers found it difficult to quantify exercise when it came to their children because children naturally played in ways that could be considered exercise. Family-based interventions should begin in early childhood and promote walking and dog-walking as forms of exercise, parental education on childhood exercise guidelines, and preparing and eating healthy home-cooked meals in the home.
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 | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".