A systematic review and meta‐analysis of the child‐level effects of family‐based interventions for the prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the effects of family-based health promotion interventions on child-level risk factors for type 2 diabetes in vulnerable families. METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist for systematic reviews formed the methodological framework. CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science were searched on January 12, 2024. The NTP-OHAT Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used to assess the risk of bias in the individual studies, and meta-analyses were performed. RESULTS: The 4723 studies were identified, and 55 studies met the inclusion criteria. Results showed significant effects on children's body mass index (mean difference [MD], -0.18, 95% CI [-0.33 to -0.03], p = 0.02), body fat percentage (MD, -2.00, 95% CI [-3.31 to -0.69], p = 0.003), daily activity (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.23, 95% CI [0.01; 0.44], p = 0.04), physical activity self-efficacy (SMD, 0.73, 95% CI [0.36 to 1.10], p < 0.01), intake of snacks (MD, -0.10, 95% CI [-0.17 to -0.04], p = 0.002), and sugar-sweetened beverages (SMD, -0.21, 95% CI [-0.42 to -0.01], p = 0.04). Subgroup analyses suggested that interventions aiming to change child and parent behavior simultaneously have larger effect on fasting glucose and nutrition consumption, and that interventions longer than 26 weeks have larger effects on body composition and physical activity behavior than shorter interventions.
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 | 0.021 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".