End-user perspectives to inform policy and program decisions: a qualitative and quantitative content analysis of lifestyle treatment recommendations by adolescents with obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Lifestyle modifications represent the first line of treatment in obesity management; however, many adolescents with obesity do not meet lifestyle recommendations. Given that adolescents are rarely consulted during health policy development and in the design of lifestyle interventions, their first-hand experiences, preferences, and priorities may not be represented. Accordingly, our purpose was to explore adolescents’ lifestyle treatment recommendations to inform policy and program decisions. Methods Conducted from July 2017 to January 2018, this study adhered to a qualitative, crosslanguage, patient-oriented design. We recruited 19 13–17-year-old adolescents (body mass index [BMI] ≥85th percentile) seeking multidisciplinary treatment for obesity in geographically and culturally diverse regions of Canada. Adolescents participated in one-on-one, in-person, semi-structured interviews in English or French. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, managed using NVivo 11, and analyzed using quantitative and qualitative content analysis by two independent researchers. Results Adolescents’ recommendations were organized into five categories, each of which denotes health as a collective responsibility: (i) establish parental support within limits, (ii) improve accessibility and availability of ‘healthy foods’, (iii) limit deceptive practices in food marketing, (iv) improve accessibility and availability of varied physical activity opportunities, and (v) delay school start times. Respect for individual autonomy and decision-making capacity were identified as particularly important, however these were confronted with adolescents’ partial knowledge on nutrition and food literacy. Conclusions Adolescents’ recommendations highlighted multi-level, multi-component factors that influenced their ability to lead healthy lifestyles. Uptake of these recommendations by policy-makers and program developers may be of added value for lifestyle treatment targeting adolescents with obesity.
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 | 0.034 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".