Exploring Social Media Preferences for Healthy Weight Management Interventions Among Adolescents of Color: Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Social media holds promise as an intervention platform to engage youths in healthy weight management and target racial inequities in obesity. OBJECTIVE: This mixed methods study aimed to examine social media habits, preferences, and obesity-related behaviors (eg, diet and physical activity) among adolescents of color and understand preferences for healthy weight management interventions delivered via social media. METHODS: This mixed methods study is comprised of a cross-sectional web-based survey and a series of digital focus groups. Study participants (English-speaking youths of color ages 14-18 years) were recruited from high schools and youth-based community settings in Massachusetts and California. For surveys, participants were invited to complete an anonymous web-based survey assessing self-reported sociodemographics, social media habits and preferences, health behaviors (diet, physical activity, sleep, and screen time), and height and weight. For focus groups, participants were invited to participate in 45- to 60-minute web-based group discussions assessing social media habits, preferred social media platforms, and preferences for physical activity and nutrition intervention content and delivery. Survey data were analyzed descriptively; focus group transcripts were analyzed using a directed content analysis approach. RESULTS: A total of 101 adolescents completed the survey and 20 adolescents participated in a total of 3 focus groups. Participants reported most frequently using TikTok, followed by Instagram, Snapchat, and Twitter; preference for platform varied by purpose of use (eg, content consumption, connection, or communication). TikTok emerged as the platform of choice as an engaging way to learn about various topics, including desired health information on physical fitness and diet. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study suggest that social media platforms can be an engaging way to reach adolescents of color. Data will inform future social media-based interventions to engage adolescents of color in healthy weight management content.
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 | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".