The Effectiveness and Usability of Online, Group-Based Interventions for People With Severe Obesity: Protocol for a Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: ). Access to treatment for people with severe obesity is limited by long wait times and local availability. Online and group-based interventions provide means of increasing the accessibility of obesity prevention and treatment services. However, there has been no prior review of the effectiveness of group-based interventions delivered online for people with severe obesity. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review protocol is to provide an evaluation of the effectiveness and usability of different types of online, group-based interventions for people with severe obesity. METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) and the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, and Study (PICOS) frameworks were used to structure this review. The review will systematically search 7 databases: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, APA PsycNet, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses databases. Two authors (MM-I and LB) will independently screen the titles and abstracts of identified articles, select studies for inclusion based on the eligibility criteria, and extract data into a standardized form. Any disagreements will be discussed and resolved by a third reviewer (EM) if necessary. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias 2 tool and a descriptive analysis will be used to evaluate effectiveness and usability. RESULTS: The systematic review has not yet been started. It is expected to be completed and submitted for publication by December 2021. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review will summarize the effectiveness and usability of online, group-based interventions for people with obesity. It will identify the types of online delivery that have the strongest support to help inform the development of more useful and engaging interventions for people with severe obesity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: National Institute for Health Research, PROSPERO CRD42021227101; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021227101. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/26619.
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 | 0.106 | 0.127 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.070 | 0.011 |
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".