Barriers and facilitators to healthy living counselling in Canadian pediatric tertiary care: a survey of healthcare providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: The purpose of this study is to gather HCPs’ perspectives on current practices and attitudes to Healthy Living Counselling (HLC), along with identifying barriers and facilitators to delivering HLC during clinical encounters. Methods: A 39-item HCP Needs Assessment Survey was administered to 705 HCPs in the Pediatric Department of a tertiary pediatric hospital in British Columbia, Canada. The survey received 290 responses, resulting in a final sample size of 244 after applying exclusion criteria. Frequencies and proportions were reported. Linear regression and chi-squared tests were used to analyze associations between responses. Results: HCPs reported frequent measurement of height, weight, and BMI and supported addressing health behaviours with their patients. However, assessments of healthy living behaviours (e.g., physical activity, healthy eating, screen time) were reported as occurring "rarely/half of patient visits." HLC was more commonly provided to patients perceived as overweight/obese (19.4% for most/every visit) than those with healthy weights (7.7%). While HCPs exhibited confidence in discussing health behaviours, they had lower confidence in broaching weight-specific issues. Both practical (time constraints, available support) and interpersonal (therapeutic relationship concerns) barriers to HLC provision were identified. Conclusion: This study highlights the recognition among HCPs of the importance of HLC provision, along with a desire for improved training opportunities to enhance their skills. Future possible interventions include motivational interviewing and weight stigma training to bolster HCPs' confidence and efficacy in delivering HLC. These findings contribute valuable insights for enhancing HCPs' abilities and willingness to promote healthy living behaviours among pediatric patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".