Parent involvement in child anthropometric measurement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Young children are often accompanied by their parent/caregiver when attending primary healthcare visits, where clinical procedures such as anthropometric measurements are conducted. Parents are not typically involved in their child’s anthropometric measurement collection, and there are no recommendations for parental involvement during visits. The objective of this study was to describe parents’ experiences with being involved in their child’s anthropometric measurements. Methods A 10-question survey comprised of scaled and open-ended questions was self-administered to participants after child anthropometric measurement collection including length/height, weight, head, arm, and waist circumference. Survey data were analyzed using a general inductive approach and thematic analysis. Surveys were collected in participating TARGet Kids! primary care practice sites in Toronto, Canada. Survey respondents included 30 parents of children < 2 years of age, and 30 parents of children 2–5 years of age. Results 76% of parents with children aged < 2 years and 93% of those with children aged 2–5 years rated their overall experience in being involved in their child’s anthropometric measurement as enjoyable or thoroughly enjoyable. Analysis of open-ended survey questions revealed five themes: [1] parent interest in child growth; [2] ease of anthropometric measurement; [3] extended clinic visit; [4] child discomfort; and [5] interest in participating in research. Conclusion Parents reported a high degree of enjoyment in being involved in their child’s anthropometric measurements. Parent participation in anthropometric measurement may improve parental satisfaction with children’s primary healthcare. Future research may include assessing the reliability of measurements taken with the support of a parent/caregiver.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".