Careful conversations: an educational video to support parents in communicating about weight with their children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parents may struggle to initiate healthy weight-related conversations with their children. Educational videos may be an effective tool for improving parents' knowledge and self-efficacy on this topic. The aim of this pilot study was to develop an educational video to assist parents in weight-related conversations with their child, and to assess changes in parents' self-efficacy on this topic. METHODS: Video development was based on a scoping review and semi-structured interviews with parents. Respondent demographics and user satisfaction were assessed at pre- and post- video, and 4-6 months later. Self-efficacy scores were compared between parent groups based on weight concerns over time. RESULTS: Fifty-seven parents participated in the video questionnaires, and 40 repeated measures 4-6 months later. Significant improvements in self-efficacy in "raising the issue of weight" and "answering questions or concerns" were found after watching the video (p ≤ 0.002) compared to baseline, and scores 4-6 months post baseline remained slightly elevated, but non-significant. Parents with concerns about their child being overweight had significantly lower perceived self-efficacy scores compared to parents with no concerns about their child's weight (p = 0.031). The video was found to be positively received and of relevance to parents across a number of different domains. CONCLUSION(S): Preliminary findings suggest an educational video about initiating weight-related conversations may be an effective tool for increasing parents' perceived self-efficacy in the short term. Further work is needed to validate findings in a randomized controlled trial, and with diverse parent populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03664492 . Registered 10 September 2018 - Retrospectively registered.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".