Effectiveness of obesity interventions among South Korean children and adolescents and importance of the type of intervention component: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Various interventions have been tested to prevent or treat childhood obesity in South Korea. However, the overall effect of those interventions is unclear, as very few reviews and meta-analyses were specific to Korean children and adolescents. PURPOSE: We aimed to examine the overall effect of obesity interventions among Korean children and adolescents, while also examining differences by sex, age group, baseline weight category, intervention duration, number of intervention components, and type of intervention components. METHODS: A meta-analysis was conducted for all intervention studies sampling Korean children and adolescents, with at least one control group and one month of follow-up, published between January 2000 and August 2020. Cohen d was calculated as an effect size for treatment effect, using the standardized difference between intervention group's body mass index (BMI) change and control group's BMI change. RESULTS: The final sample included 19 intervention studies with 2,140 Korean children (mean age, 12.2 years). Overall, interventions were strongly favored over their controls (d=1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-2.09). The subgroup analysis showed that interventions with at least one physical activity component (d=2.43; 95% CI, 1.63-3.24) were significantly better than those that did not include physical activity (d=0.02; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.31). CONCLUSION: Type of intervention component appeared important, though no differential association was observed by sex, age, baseline weight category, intervention duration, and number of intervention components. Korean and non-Korean interventions may be substantively different. Additional studies are needed to understand why and how Korean interventions differ from non-Korean interventions.
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 | 0.018 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.058 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".