Providers’ involvement of blended families in pediatric weight management programs.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Family based interventions are the standard for pediatric weight management programs (PWMPs), yet the details of how to involve additional family members, when youth are part of blended families (i.e., step families) or reside in multiple households is not well understood. The objective of this study is to describe how providers involve blended families and multiple households in PWMPs. METHOD: A cross-sectional exploratory survey was conducted of providers at PWMPs in the United States and Canada. The survey questions included had both multiple choice and open-ended responses. Univariate analyses were conducted. RESULTS: 71 providers participated, representing 47 centers/clinics. The majority (96%) reported assessing multiple households, most often during the medical history. Providers reported including the primary caretakers at all known residences (59%), but not immediate family members beyond the primary caretakers. Providers reported adapting dietary (88%) and physical activity (77%) recommendations to accommodate multiple households. The most frequent adaptations included the goals at each family/household, adjustments on a per family basis or based on family resources, and making materials available to all family members. The most frequent challenges in extending treatment plans to multiple households included one caretaker/household not willing to participate or being present at visits, and inconsistency between households. Despite providers reporting that they assess multiple households, they did not have a formal interview template or form to use in assessments (27%). DISCUSSION: Providers recognize the challenges and complexity that blended families present with in obesity treatment. Further research is need to increase provider assessment and involvement of blended families and the extension of goals and treatment plans to multiple homes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".