MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409518217 · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2025.1519467

Child opinions related to a core outcome set for school-based healthy lifestyle behavior interventions: the COCOS study

2025· article· en· W4409518217 on OpenAlexaff
Teatske M. Altenburg, Lotte W de Vries, Kheana Barbeau, Alyssa M. Button, Ashley Cox, Louise de Lannoy, Mhairi J. MacDonald, Rowena Naidoo, Amanda E. Staiano, Mark S. Tremblay, Deirdre M. Harrington

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Public Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Calgary
FundersWellcome TrustCenters for Disease Control and PreventionInyuvesi Yakwazulu-NataliUniversity of LeicesterEdge Hill University
KeywordsPsychological interventionOutcome (game theory)MedicineSet (abstract data type)Core (optical fiber)Family medicineGerontologyPsychologyNursingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Including children's perspectives developing health programs is a priority. This study gathered children's perspectives on outcomes in a Core Outcomes Set (COS), which they believe are important to measure in school-based healthy lifestyle behavioral interventions. Methods: Children aged 8-12 years from six countries across three continents participated in standardized interactive focus groups. An animation video was used to explain all relevant concepts (e.g., "intervention", "outcomes") and showed animated children engaging in a variety of lifestyle behaviors at school. Participating children then brainstormed and proposed outcomes they consider important to measure when evaluating a school-based "healthy lifestyle programme". Next, children individually rated the importance of the outcomes using a traffic light system (red, "not important"; orange, "important"; green, "very important"). Similar outcomes (across focus groups and countries) were merged, and an overall importance rating was given to each outcome (across countries and overall). An outcome was considered important for inclusion in a COS if ≥70% of children scored the outcome as "very important" and <15% scored it as "not important". Results: = 159) proposed 170 unique outcomes. Children proposed thirty-six outcomes in at least two countries, of which 20 outcomes received an overall rating of "very important" in all countries where the outcomes were reported. Of these 20, five outcomes were reported by children in at least four countries: being healthy, healthy diet, concentration, having fun, and feeling happy. Conclusion: Children reported a wide range of outcomes related to physical and mental health, as well as enjoyment and social skills, such as having fun and making friends. All outcomes reported by children in at least two countries and considered "very important" will be considered for inclusion in the consensus stage of developing a COS for school-based intervention studies aimed at childhood overweight and obesity prevention.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.321
GPT teacher head0.565
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Public HealthSame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207