Review of an international pilot project to adapt the Canadian Adult Obesity Clinical Practice Guideline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The evidence-based Canadian Adult Obesity Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) released in August 2020 were developed through a systematic literature review and patient-oriented research process. This CPG is considered a paradigm shift for obesity care as it introduced a new obesity definition that is based on health not body size, incorporates lived experiences of people affected by obesity, and addresses the pervasive weight bias and stigma that patients face in healthcare systems. The purpose of this pilot project was to assess the feasibility of adapting the Canadian CPG in Chile and Ireland. Methods: An International Clinical Practice Guideline Adaptation Committee was established to oversee the project. The project was conducted through four interrelated phases: 1) planning and preparation; 2) pilot project application process; 3) adaptation; and 4) launch, dissemination, and implementation. Ireland used the GRADE-ADAPTE framework and Chile used the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT approach. Results: Chile and Ireland developed their adapted guidelines in one third of the time it took to develop the Canadian guidelines. In Ireland, 18 chapters, which underpin the 80 key recommendations, were contextually adapted. Chile adopted 18 chapters and 76 recommendations, adapted one recommendation, and developed 12 new recommendations. . Conclusion: The pilot project demonstrated it is feasible to adapt the Canadian CPG for use in other countries with different healthcare systems, languages, and cultural contexts, while retaining the Canadian CPG's key principles and values such as the treatment of obesity as a chronic disease, adoption of new clinical assessment approaches that go beyond anthropometric measurements, elimination of weight bias and stigma, shifting obesity care outcomes to improved health and well-being rather than weight loss alone, and the use of patient-centred, collaborative and shared-decision clinical care approaches.
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 | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
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".