MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995970463 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20190072

Barriers to accessing weight-loss interventions for patients with class II or III obesity in primary care: a qualitative study

2019· article· en· W2995970463 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Boris Zevin, Nancy Dalgarno, Mary Martin, Colleen Grady, Jacob Matusinec, Robyn L. Houlden, Richard Birtwhistle, Karen E. Smith, Rachael Morkem, David Barber

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionWeight lossThematic analysisFocus groupIntervention (counseling)MedicineObesityQualitative researchExploratory researchFamily medicinePsychologyGerontologyNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Over 1 million Canadians have class II or III obesity; however, access to weight-loss interventions for these patients remains limited. The purpose of our study was to identify the barriers to accessing medical and surgical weight-loss interventions from the perspectives of 3 groups: family physicians, patients who were referred for weight-loss intervention and patients who were not referred for weight-loss intervention. METHODS: Between November 2017 and May 2018, we conducted a qualitative exploratory research study using focus groups with family physicians and interviews with patients with class II or III obesity from 1 region in southern Ontario. We conducted a thematic analysis to identify emergent themes and used the barriers to change theory to classify the similarities and differences between the perspectives of family physicians, referred patients and nonreferred patients in first- and second-order barriers. RESULTS: Seventeen family physicians participated in 7 focus groups (1-4 participants/group), and we interviewed 8 referred patients and 7 nonreferred patients. We identified lack of resource supports, logistics and lack of knowledge about weight-loss interventions as first-order barriers to change, and lack of knowledge about root causes of obesity, lack of patient readiness for change and family physicians' perceptions about surgical weight loss as second-order barriers to change. Family physicians and patients had similar perceptions regarding lack of resource supports in the community, logistical issues, family physicians' lack of knowledge regarding weight-loss interventions, patients' lack of motivation and family physicians' perceptions of bariatric surgery as being high risk. They differed regarding the root cause of obesity, with family physicians attributing obesity to multiple extrinsic and intrinsic causes, whereas patients believed obesity was largely due to intrinsic causes alone. INTERPRETATION: It is important to address first- and second-order barriers to accessing weight-loss interventions through continuing professional development activities for family physicians to help ensure effective and timely treatment for patients with class II or III obesity and related comorbidities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.112
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.409 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMAJ OpenSame topicObesity and Health PracticesFrench-language works237,207