Parents as Agents of Change in Managing Pediatric Obesity: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Cognitive Behavioral Therapy versus Psychoeducation Interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Obesity interventions for parents of children with obesity can improve children's weight and health. This randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluated whether a parent-based intervention based on cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) principles was superior to a parent-based intervention based on a psychoeducation program (PEP) in improving children's obesity. Methods: This study was a pragmatic, two-armed, parallel, superiority RCT. Conducted at a Canadian outpatient pediatric obesity management clinic (September 2010–January 2014), this trial included families with children 8–12 years with an age- and sex-specific BMI ≥85th percentile. The 16-week manualized interventions were similar in content and delivered to parents exclusively, with different theoretical underpinnings. The primary outcome was children's BMI z-score at postintervention (4 months). Secondary outcomes included anthropometric, lifestyle, psychosocial, and cardiometabolic variables. Data were collected at preintervention (0 months), postintervention (4 months), 10, and 16 months. Intention-to-treat analysis using linear mixed models was used to assess outcomes. Results: Among 52 randomly assigned children, the mean age (standard deviation) was 9.8 (1.7) years and BMI z-score was 2.2 (0.3). Mean differences in BMI z-score were not significantly different between the CBT (n = 27) and PEP (n = 25) groups from 0 to 4-, 10-, and 16-month follow-up. At 4 months, the mean difference in BMI z-score from preintervention between the CBT (−0.05, 95% CI = −0.09 to 0.00) and PEP (−0.04, 95% CI = −0.09 to 0.01) groups was −0.01 (95% CI = −0.08 to 0.06, p = 0.80). Similar results were found across all secondary outcomes. Conclusions: Our CBT-based intervention for parents of children with obesity was not superior in reducing BMI z-score vs. our PEP-based intervention.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".