Exploring Health Care Providers? Perspectives of Care Practices, Facilitators, and Barriers Experienced when Managing Childhood Obesity in Rural Northwestern Ontario Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous literature has identified that rural communities have a higher obesity prevalence than their \nurban counterparts. In comparison to the rest of the province, childhood obesity rates are significantly higher in Northwestern Ontario (NWO), a region made up of rural, isolated communities. Obesity management interventions administered through primary care offer an excellent opportunity to address obesity-related health problems. To date, there is a paucity of research examining the perceptions of health care providers (HCPs) who work with children, youth, and families regarding facilitators and barriers to care experienced in practice, especially in rural areas. Moreover, the current standard of care for paediatric obesity management appears to be unknown. Given that childhood obesity is such a complex health issue, interdisciplinary Family Health Teams should have a positive effect on management efforts. Thus, the purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the perspectives of interdisciplinary HCPs who subscribe to \nthe Family Health Team Model in rural NWO communities regarding the care practices, facilitators, and barriers experienced when working to manage overweight and obesity in children and youth. Participants were recruited from five rural health centres that provide services to paediatric populations in NWO. \nEleven, one-on-one semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted and involved registered dieticians ( \nn=3), family physicians (n=3), nurse practitioners (n=3), social workers (n=1), and registered practical nurses (n=1). The researcher followed a semi-structured interview guide; all sessions were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using inductive content analysis on NVivo software. \n.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".