Family systems approaches in pediatric obesity management: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family-based obesity management interventions targeting child, adolescent and parental lifestyle behaviour modifications have shown promising results. Further intervening on the family system may lead to greater improvements in obesity management outcomes due to the broader focus on family patterns and dynamics that shape behaviours and health. This review aimed to summarize the scope of pediatric obesity management interventions informed by family systems theory (FST). Medline, Embase, CINAHL and PsycInfo were searched for articles where FST was used to inform pediatric obesity management interventions published from January 1980 to October 2023. After removal of duplicates, 6053 records were screened to determine eligibility. Data were extracted from 50 articles which met inclusion criteria; these described 27 unique FST-informed interventions. Most interventions targeted adolescents (44%), were delivered in outpatient hospital settings (37%), and were delivered in person (81%) using group session modalities (44%). Professionals most often involved were dieticians and nutritionists (48%). We identified 11 FST-related concepts that guided intervention components, including parenting skills, family communication, and social/family support. Among included studies, 33 reported intervention effects on at least one outcome, including body mass index (BMI) (n = 24), lifestyle behaviours (physical activity, diet, and sedentary behaviours) (n = 18), mental health (n = 12), FST-related outcomes (n = 10), and other outcomes (e.g., adiposity, cardiometabolic health) (n = 18). BMI generally improved following interventions, however studies relied on a variety of comparison groups to evaluate intervention effects. This scoping review synthesises the characteristics and breadth of existing FST-informed pediatric obesity management interventions and provides considerations for future practice and research.
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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".