Talking About Weight With Families—Helping Health Care Professionals Start the Conversation: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health care professionals (HCPs) and trainees feel ill-equipped to discuss weight-related issues with children and their families. A whiteboard video for HCPs and trainees outlining strategies to communicate about weight was developed and evaluated. Seventy HCPs, including 15 trainees, participated in the baseline assessment and 39 repeated measures 4 to 6 months later. HCP self-efficacy for initiating conversations with overweight and underweight patients, measured immediately following the video, significantly improved from pre-video values ( Z = −5.6, P ≤ .001, and Z= −3.3, P = .001, respectively). Although improvements were not sustained 4 to 6 months later (overweight: P = .143, and underweight: P = .846), no significant decline was observed, suggesting retention of the skill. A majority of HCP respondents would recommend the video to a colleague and feel it will affect their practice. Thus, the present study suggests educational videos may be an effective tool for facilitating healthy weight-related conversations between HCPs and their pediatric patients.
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 it