Differential effects of a school‐based obesity prevention program: A cluster randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
School-based healthy living interventions are widely promoted as strategies for preventing obesity. The peer-led Healthy Buddies™ curriculum has been shown to improve obesity-related outcomes in school-aged children. We examined whether these improvements existed among subgroups of children stratified by sex, income level and urban/rural geography. In a cluster-randomized controlled trial, elementary schools in Manitoba, Canada, were randomly allocated to Healthy Buddies™ (10 schools, 340 students) or standard curriculum (10 schools, 347 students). Healthy Buddies™ participants had 21weekly lessons on healthy eating, physical activity and self-efficacy, delivered by children age 9-12 to children age 6-8. We assessed pre- and post-intervention body mass index (BMI) z-scores, waist circumference, healthy living knowledge, dietary intake and self-efficacy among the younger children. Compared to standard curriculum (n = 154), Healthy Buddies™ participants (n = 157) experienced a greater reduction in waist circumference (-1.7 cm; 95% confidence interval [CI][-2.8, -0.5 cm]) and improved dietary intake (4.6; 95% CI [0.9, 8.3]), healthy living knowledge (5.9; 95% CI [2.3, 9.5]) and self-efficacy (5.3; 95% CI [1.0, 9.5]) scores. In subgroup analyses, effects for waist circumference (-2.0 cm; 95% CI [-3.6, -0.5]), healthy living knowledge (9.1; 95% CI [4.4, 13.8]) and self-efficacy (8.3; 95% CI [3.3, 13.3]) were significant among boys. Dietary intake (10.5; 95% CI [5.5, 15.4]), healthy living knowledge (9.8; 95% CI [4.5, 15.0]) and self-efficacy (6.7; 95% CI [0.7, 12.7]) improved among urban-dwelling but not rural-dwelling children. Healthy Buddies™ was effective for boys and children living in urban settings. Enhanced curricula may be needed to improve program effectiveness for select subgroups of school-aged children.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 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".