Family-based nutrition interventions for obesity prevention among school-aged children: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effective evidence-informed family-based nutrition interventions for childhood obesity management are needed. (a) To assess the number and quality of published randomized controlled trials incorporating family-based nutrition interventions for childhood obesity (ages 5-18 years) management and (b) to identify intervention attributes (e.g., contact time, nutrition curricula, and behavior change strategies) used in successful interventions. Studies that met eligibility criteria were randomized controlled trials and family-based childhood obesity management interventions for children and adolescents ages 5-18 years old that included a healthy eating component and measured child dietary behaviors and/or parent dietary feeding practices. Six databases were searched: CINAHL complete, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, MEDLINE with full text (PubMed), PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, and ERIC (EBSCO Host). The validated Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies was used to assess study quality. Eight studies met eligibility criteria. Study quality analysis showed that blinding of the research teams (e.g., analysts, and those focused on data collection) and the use of age appropriate, valid, and reliable instruments were areas of concern. Successful nutrition interventions targeting children 5-18 years old, appear to include setting family-based goals, modifying home food environment, hands-on approaches to teaching nutrition (games, group-based activities), and fruit and vegetable vouchers. This review highlighted a limited amount of moderate to high quality evidence to suggest that family-based nutrition interventions can be successful in improving dietary behaviors and that interventions with positive outcomes had some components of nutrition curricula and strategies in common.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".