Therapeutic inertia in obesity management among people living with obesity from the perspective of general/family practitioners in Canada: A mixed‐methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This mixed‐methods study aimed to explore factors contributing to therapeutic inertia among people living with obesity in Canada from the perspective of general/family practitioners (GP/FPs). One‐on‐one interviews and online surveys guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework were conducted. A total of 20 general/family practitioners were interviewed and 200 general/family practitioners were surveyed. Key findings from interviews were used to guide the development of the survey. Spearman's correlation analysis evaluated the association between general/family practitioners theme domain scores and their familiarity with the 2020 Canadian Adult Obesity Clinical Practice Guidelines. The 200 general/family practitioners surveyed provided representation across Canada, with diversity in age, background, and gender. The most prominent domains related to therapeutic inertia that were positively influenced by familiarity with Clinical Practice Guidelines were Beliefs about Capabilities ( r s = .27; p < .01), Skills ( r s = .23; p < .01), Behavioural Regulation ( r s = .24; p < .01) and Emotions ( r s = .23; p < .01). Irrespective of their familiarity with Clinical Practice Guidelines, most general/family practitioners reported that environmental and contextual barriers impact obesity management. Particularly, while financial barriers were reported by participants regardless of Clinical Practice Guidelines familiarity, general/family practitioners familiar with Clinical Practice Guidelines more often reported having time to discuss obesity management with patients. This study identified perceptions, resource and training considerations that contribute to healthcare decision‐making and therapeutic inertia in obesity management among general/family practitioners and highlighted key areas to target with interventions in primary care to facilitate obesity management, which should be multi‐faceted, with a focus on incorporating obesity education into healthcare providers training programs and improving systemic and financial support.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".