Survey of Barriers and Facilitators to Engagement in a Multidisciplinary Healthy Lifestyles Program for Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To understand facilitators and barriers to engagement in a multidisciplinary assessment and intervention program for children and adolescents with obesity, particularly for Māori, the Indigenous people of New Zealand. METHODS: Whānau Pakari participants and caregivers (n = 71, 21% response rate) referred to the family-based healthy lifestyles program in Taranaki, New Zealand, were asked to participate in a confidential survey, which collected self-reported attendance levels and agreement with statements around service accessibility and appropriateness and open-text comments identifying barriers and facilitators to attendance. RESULTS: Self-reported attendance levels were higher when respondents reported sessions to be conveniently located (P = .03) and lower when respondents considered other priorities as more important for their family (P = .02). Māori more frequently reported that past experiences of health care influenced their decision to attend (P = .03). Facilitators included perceived convenience of the program, parental motivation to improve child health, and ongoing support from the program. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Program convenience and parental and/or self-motivation to improve health were facilitators of attendance. Further research is required to understand the relationship between past experiences with health care and subsequent engagement with services.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".