Stakeholder perspectives and sustainability of an integrated care model for the prevention and management of obesity: the Childhood Obesity Research Demonstration (CORD) project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although reliable strategies exist to promote healthy habits that reduce childhood obesity, the sustainability of these strategies remains an ongoing public health challenge. This study aimed to identify factors experienced in a large, multisite project aimed at reducing childhood obesity that might contribute to project sustainability. Hypothesized constructs underpinning sustainability included replicability, continuation of benefits, institutionalization, and community capacity. Key informants (n = 27) completed 60 min, in-depth interviews, which were audio recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were first coded using a combined deductive and inductive approach. Four major themes emerged (with numerous subthemes): developing partnerships, challenges to the sustainability of implemented programming, the importance of intervening in multiple settings, and ongoing implementation and evaluation strategies. Replicability of complex childhood obesity interventions is possible when there are strong partnerships. Benefits can continue to be conferred from programming, particularly when evidence-based strategies are used that employ best practices. Implementation is facilitated by institutionalization and policies that buffer challenges, such as staffing or leadership changes. Community capacity both enhances the sustainability of interventions and develops as a result of strengthening partnerships and policies that support childhood obesity programming.
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 | 0.061 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".