Empowerment Approaches in Childhood Weight Management: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Empowerment interventions facilitate individuals, organizations, and communities to gain better control over their health. They are distinctly different from traditional behavior change models and encourage participants to set their own health priorities and agenda. Current evidence suggests empowerment interventions are efficacious for smoking, sexual, and mental health outcomes. However, empowerment in childhood obesity (which remains a global public health challenge) is underresearched. This review systematically analyzed the evidence for empowerment approaches in childhood weight management. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. A search strategy was applied to six databases from inception to May 25, 2021. Evidence was appraised using The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Quality Criteria Checklist and National Health and Medical Research Council Levels of Evidence. Of the 9274 articles identified, 29 articles describing 14 programs met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-five studies rated positive and four rated neutral. Overall, the evidence body rated "B." Seventy-two percent of the 3318 participants were from priority populations, highlighting the unique ability of empowerment interventions to engage those most in need. Results demonstrate small to large improvements in participant body mass index with effect sizes ranging from 0.08 to 1.13. Throughout the literature, empowerment was measured inconsistently and usually with a surrogate marker. All studies were set in America or Canada. This review suggests empowerment should be further investigated in childhood weight management. Empowerment interventions represent a unique opportunity to meaningfully integrate self-determination to clinical childhood weight management practice and overcome current barriers related to priority population engagement.
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 | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".