The Effectiveness of a Blended In-Person and Online Family-Based Childhood Obesity Management Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a 10-week blended family-based childhood obesity management program, relative to a wait-list control, in improving child body mass index (BMI) z-scores, child lifestyle behaviors, parental support for healthy eating and physical activity, and self-regulation for healthy eating and physical activity support. Methods: This study was registered as a randomized wait-listed controlled trial; however, due to low recruitment and program delivery logistics, this study transitioned into a quasi-experimental design. Families with children 8–12 years of age with a BMI ≥85th percentile for age and sex were recruited (October 2018 to March 2019) in British Columbia, Canada. The intervention provided families 10 weeks of in-person and online support on improving lifestyle behaviors. Results: Children's BMI z-scores were not significantly changed. Intervention group significantly improved their days of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity relative to control (0.75 ± 1.5; p < 0.01; ηp2 = 0.15); however, child dietary behaviors were not significantly changed. Relative to control, intervention group showed significant improvements in parental support for healthy eating (0.13 ± 0.36; p < 0.05; ηp2 = 0.06) and physical activity (1.0 ± 1.6; p < 0.05; ηp2 = 0.09) and self-regulation for healthy eating (2.0 ± 3.5; p < 0.01; ηp2 = 0.11) and physical activity support (2.0 ± 3.2; p < 0.05; ηp2 = 0.28). Conclusions: Preliminary evidence showed that the intervention was not effective in improving child BMI z-scores, but it was effective in promoting children's physical activity and parents' support behaviors. A longer study period may be required to change BMI z-scores. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT03643341.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".