Clinical and school-based intervention strategies for youth obesity prevention: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: In the last couple of decades, numerous intervention strategies (ISs) have been formulated in school/community or clinical sectors using physical activity (PA) in order to prevent youth obesity because they have been highly effective in addressing this issue. These two sectors have revealed some interesting information in terms of efficient results and best practice mechanisms, but comparisons between them to learn about their functioning have been rare. Methods: Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to analyze and synthesize PA ISs from school/community or clinical domains for the period 2013-2017, in French or English, targeting youths aged 5-19 years old through primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention. Results: In total, 68 full articles were reserved for data extraction and synthesis and 617 were excluded because they did not meet eligibility criteria (61 of 68 were kept for the final analysis). The results identified a number of differences between the studies of the various IS sectors and also a third type of IS, mixed sector. Mixed ISs (clinical and school-community) have a special advantage because they can benefit from the strengths of both school/community-based and clinical-based ISs. Mixed ISs showed the most promising results. This review also highlighted the differences between sectors and their ISs in terms of intervention teams, prevention objectives, duration, materials, and efficiency. Conclusion: Future studies should focus on establishing a prevention program in a given geographical area involving all stakeholders with their respective skills/knowledge, in the area of decision-making and in the development of ISs, to ensure that the program is the most efficient and best adapted to its environment.
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 | 0.017 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".