Variability in How Canadian Pediatric Weight Management Clinics Deliver Care: Evidence from the CANadian Pediatric Weight Management Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Clinical practice guidelines for pediatric weight management highlight the importance of family-based behavioral strategies to enhance health behaviors. Little is known, however, of how clinics implement these programs. The study objectives were to (1) describe how Canadian pediatric weight management clinics deliver care and (2) evaluate change in services over time. Methods: The CANadian Pediatric Weight management Registry (CANPWR) is a multisite prospective cohort study of participants enrolled in a Canadian pediatric weight management clinic. Clinical program characteristics (e.g., referral process, inclusion criteria, funding, program characteristics, patient interaction methods, and follow-up) were collected at the start and end of the CANPWR recruitment period (2015–2019). Results: Entrance into the nine clinics varied with limiting criteria based on geographic proximity, age, weight status, and presence of health conditions. The clinics varied in size (50–220 new patients/year). The planned length of intervention varied widely, from 10 weeks to open-ended (median 2 years). Behavior modification strategies were delivered with a mix of individual and group-based sessions and most were delivered in person, complemented by use of virtual care. Over time, more clinics saw patients under the age of 5 years and all clinics defined a program length. Conclusion: Although all clinics offered family-based behavioral weight management services, these varied considerably, especially in program entrance criteria, size of clinic, and the length of intervention. The influence of the variability in delivery of services on health outcomes will be addressed in future studies.
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 | 0.036 | 0.152 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".