MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006800750 · doi:10.1111/cch.12762

Putting positive weight‐related conversations into practice: The pilot implementation of a Knowledge Translation Casebook

2020· article· en· W3006800750 on OpenAlexaffabout
Revi Bonder, Christine Provvidenza, Darlene Hubley, Amy C. McPherson

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Care Health and Development · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCasebookKnowledge translationCurriculumPsychologyMedical educationBest practiceHealth careAutismMedicinePedagogyPsychiatryKnowledge management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Healthcare professionals (HCPs) play an important role in discussing weight with children and their parents but report barriers such as lack of training and supports. These barriers are especially prevalent within specialized populations such as children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). To address this, a Knowledge Translation Casebook on positive weight-related conversations was developed by a research team at a Canadian paediatric hospital. The purpose of the current pre-implementation pilot study was to explore initial acceptability and adoption of the Casebook into clinical settings. METHODS: An interactive, multimodal education workshop was created to provide HCPs with knowledge and training on how to have positive weight-related conversations with children and parents. Two workshops were conducted using the same curriculum but delivered either in-person or online. Participants were drawn from a team of clinicians at a teaching hospital whose care focuses on medication management for clients with ASD and clinicians participating in a distance learning programme on best practice care for clients with ASD. Participants completed a demographic questionnaire, workshop evaluation, and a pre-workshop and post-workshop questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize demographic, questionnaire, and survey data. Answers to open-ended questions were analysed using content analysis. RESULTS: Participants agreed that the workshop gave them a clear understanding of the Casebook's content and helped them easily navigate the Casebook. Based on raw scores, self-efficacy in having weight-related conversations seemed to increase from pre-to post-workshop, but reported weight-management clinical practice scores did not change over time. However, the small sample precluded in-depth statistical analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The Casebook was acceptable and appeared to increase self-efficacy about having weight-related conversations with children with ASD and parents. More robust implementation strategies are needed to foster the uptake of best practices in weight-related conversations into clinical practice.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.366 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild Care Health and DevelopmentSame topicObesity and Health PracticesFrench-language works237,207