Parents’ A priori Expectations of an Obesity Focused Intervention and What They Found Valuable from its Health Education Webinars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Purpose: Explore parents with obesity’s: (1) a priori expectations of what they wanted to gain from participating in an obesity-focused intervention compared to (2) post-participation views of what was valuable from the webinar-based health education sessions. Design: A before and after descriptive study, baseline interviews gleaned parents’ motivations for program participation. Following 6 webinar-based health education sessions focused on physical activity (PA) and nutrition in the family unit, parents’ perceptions of what was valuable were collected. Setting: Community-dwelling members in southwestern Ontario. Participants: “Parents” (N=50) were adults with a body mass index of 25+ kg/m2 and had a child of any body composition, aged 2.5 – 10. Methods: Inductive content analyses were employed on semi-structured qualitative interview transcripts and written responses to open-ended questions. Results: Wanting to provide a healthier life for their children was a prominent finding from parents’ baseline interviews. From the webinars, information on local PA resources and on creating positive food environments were especially valuable. In total, there were 7 themes and 4 sub-themes from the baseline interviews; 7 themes and 7 sub-themes from the PA webinars; and 7 themes and 11 sub-themes from the nutrition webinars. Conclusions: Parents found the webinars addressed various concepts they hoped to gain from their participation in the intervention. Results from these webinars can inform other parent-focused family interventions on important components when crafting future webinars. Keywords: parents, health education, obesity, overweight
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 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".