MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4249224679 · doi:10.24124/2012/bpgub1595

Nurse practitioner use of a family centered care approach to manage childhood obesity in the primary health care setting

2012· dissertation· en· W4249224679 on OpenAlexaffabout
Colleen Patenaude

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersJohns Hopkins University
KeywordsChildhood obesityObesityMedicineNursingPrimary careHealth careFamily medicineManagement of obesityWeight loss

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Childhood obesity rates are rising at an alarming rate. Obesity has a negative impact on health and well being as well as social development. Obese children have a higher incidence of morbidity and mortality. Current clinical practice guidelines recommend practitioners use a family centered approach to managing childhood obesity. The purpose of this project is to examine the use of a family centered care (FCC) approach in managing childhood obesity in the primary health care setting and determine how best to incorporate it into managing childhood obesity in nurse practitioner (NP) practice. The principles of FCC are reviewed. NP use of existing nursing models such as the McGill model of nursing for guidance in incorporating family centered care into practice is examined and discussed. The research obtained during the literature review indicates using a FCC approach to disease management is effective and can be achieved in the primary health care setting. As a result of the findings, a five step approach to assessing and managing childhood obesity is recommended for NPs practicing in the primary health care setting. --Leaf ii.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet→French-language works237,207→