MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391474392 · doi:10.1186/s12889-024-17906-2

Healthy together Victoria and childhood obesity study: effects of a large scale, community-based cluster randomised trial of a systems thinking approach for the prevention of childhood obesity among secondary school students 2014–2016

2024· article· en· W4391474392 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Claudia Strugnell, Liliana Orellana, Nicholas Crooks, Mary Malakellis, Bridget Morrissey, Claire Rennie, Joshua Hayward, Jo Bliss, Boyd Swinburn, Cadeyrn J. Gaskin, Steven Allender

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCancer Council VictoriaNational Health and Medical Research CouncilHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeInternational Development Research CentreNational Institutes of HealthBarwon Health FoundationDeakin UniversityWestern Alliance Health ResearchMedical Research CouncilNovo NordiskEuropean CommissionDepartment of Health, State Government of Victoria
KeywordsMedicineChildhood obesityOverweightCluster randomised controlled trialBiostatisticsWaistObesityPublic healthGerontologyBody mass indexPsychological interventionEnvironmental healthPhysical therapyDemographyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Healthy Together Victoria (HTV) was a Victorian Government initiative that sought to reduce the prevalence of overweight and obesity through targeting chronic disease risk factors including physical activity, poor diet quality, smoking, and harmful alcohol use. The intervention involved a boosted workforce of > 170 local-level staff in 12 communities; employed to deliver system activation around health and wellbeing for individuals, families and communities. A cluster randomised trial (CRT) of a systems thinking approach to obesity prevention was embedded within HTV. We present the two-year changes in overweight and obesity and associated behaviours among secondary school students across Victoria, Australia. METHODS: Twenty-three geographically bounded areas were randomised to intervention (12 communities) or comparison (11 communities). Randomly selected secondary schools within each community were invited to participate in the trial in 2014 and 2016. Students in Grade 8 (aged approximately 13-15 years) and Grade 10 (aged approximately 15-16 years) at participating schools were recruited using an opt-out approach across July-September 2014 and 2016. Primary outcomes were body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference. Secondary outcomes were physical activity, sedentary behaviour, diet quality, health-related quality of life, and depressive symptoms. Linear mixed models were fit to estimate the intervention effect adjusting for child/school characteristics. RESULTS: There were 4242 intervention children and 2999 control children in the final analysis. For boys, the two-year change showed improvement in intervention versus control for waist circumference (difference in change: - 2.5 cm; 95% confidence interval [CI]: - 4.6, - 0.5) and consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages per day (< 1 serve: 8.5 percentage points; 95% CI: 0.6, 16.5). For girls, there were no statistically significant differences between conditions. CONCLUSIONS: HTV seemed to produce favourable changes in waist circumference and sugar-sweetened beverage consumption for boys, however, no effect on BMI was observed. Although the HTV intervention was cut short, and the period between data collection points was relatively short, the changes observed in HTV contribute to the growing evidence of whole-of-community interventions targeting childhood obesity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is unregistered. The intervention itself was a policy setting delivered by government and our role was the collection of data to evaluate the effect of this natural experiment. That is, this study was not a trial from the classical point of view and we were not responsible for the intervention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public HealthSame topicComplex Systems and Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207