Addressing unmet social needs of children with obesity: a pilot randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Childhood obesity is an ongoing public health crisis, and recent clinical practice guidelines identify addressing the role of social inequities in the disparity of health among children with obesity as an area to address. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of a community navigation intervention in a pediatric weight management clinic. METHODS: A single-center pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) recruiting families from a tertiary hospital pediatric weight management program to evaluate the feasibility of a community navigation intervention. The primary feasibility outcomes were recruitment rates (goal to recruit 80% of the sample in 6 months), uptake of the intervention (goal > 80% of participants in the intervention group to have a visit with the navigator), and acceptability (goal > 90% of families in the intervention group complete all follow-up). RESULTS: Eighty participants completed the social needs screening, and 42 (52.5%) participants screened positive for an unmet social need. In the first 6 months of recruitment, 18 participants were recruited out of a goal of 40 participants (the recruitment rate was 45% vs. the goal of 80% in 6 months), and complete recruitment was achieved in 12 months. Of the 21 participants randomized to the intervention arm, 20 completed the intervention (uptake of intervention was 95% vs. goal 80%). Ten participants in the intervention arm completed all four planned follow-up study visits (the acceptability of follow-up was 48% vs. the goal of 90%). CONCLUSION: We completed a pilot RCT of implementing a community navigator program in a pediatric weight management program. We found feasibility in the intervention's uptake but limited feasibility in recruiting participants and the acceptability of the follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04711707, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04711707.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".