Incorporation of patient and family values and preferences for health‐related outcomes in paediatric obesity management: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A systematic review of value and preference studies conducted in children and their caregivers related to the estimated benefits and harms of interventions for managing paediatric obesity. METHODS: We searched Ovid Medline (1946-2022), Ovid Embase (1974-2022), EBSCO CINAHL (inception to 2022), Elsevier Scopus (inception to 2022), and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (inception to 2022). Reports were eligible if they included: behavioural and psychological, pharmacological, or surgical interventions; participants between (or had a mean age within) 0-18 years old with overweight or obesity; systematic reviews, primary quantitative, qualitative, or mixed/multiple methods studies; and values and preferences as main study outcomes. At least two team members independently screened studies, abstracted data, and appraised study quality. RESULTS: Our search yielded 11 010 reports; eight met the inclusion criteria. One study directly assessed values and preferences based on hypothetical pharmacological treatment for hyperphagia in individuals with Prader-Willi Syndrome. Although not having reported on values and preferences using our a priori definitions, the remaining seven qualitative studies (n = 6 surgical; n = 1 pharmacological) explored general beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions about surgical and pharmacological interventions. No studies pertained to behavioural and psychological interventions. CONCLUSION: Future research is needed to elicit the values and preferences of children and caregivers using the best available estimates of the benefits and harms for pharmacological, surgical, and behavioural and psychological 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".