ANALYZING HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS’ PERSPECTIVES ON HEALTHY ACTIVE LIVING PROMOTION AMONG NEWCOMER FAMILIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Obesity affects over 1 billion individuals across the world. In Canada, nearly 1 in 7 children and adolescents are obese. The risk of obesity is heightened for newcomer children due to their adoption of the Western diet and a sedentary lifestyle. While healthcare providers (HCPs) are the first point of contact upon health concerns, little is known about how HCPs approach HAL communication with newcomer families, with the goal of preventing childhood obesity. Objectives: This study aims to understand HCPs’ experiences with newcomer families relating to (1) HAL communication, (2) HAL promotion strategies, and (3) challenges with HAL promotion. Methods: 12 HCPs currently practicing in Hamilton and experienced in working with newcomer families completed 30–60-minute semi-structured interviews. Thematic analysis was used to identify key themes relating to HAL communication approaches, HAL promotion strategies, and challenges with promoting HAL among newcomer families. Results: Three themes emerged for HAL communication: 1) reactive approach, 2) patient-centered and culturally sensitive communication, 3) holistic health discussions. Four themes emerged for HAL promotion strategies: 1) tailored resource recommendations, 2) facilitating connections among newcomers, 3) family-centered approach, 4) referrals to additional support. Five themes emerged for challenges with HAL promotion: 1) time constraints, 2) difficulty to obtain buy-in, 3) limited resources awareness & availability, 4) navigating sensitivity and empathy, 5) ambiguity in role responsibilities. Conclusion: HCPs emphasized the influence of time limitations, limited resource awareness, and newcomer families’ competing priorities on limiting their ability to proactively promote HAL. Analyzing the data through the Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH) framework revealed the various intersecting determinants of health that make HAL promotion an intricate task. With HCPs expressing reservations about their efficacy in promoting HAL proactively, investigation into collaborative approaches for proactive HAL promotion should be explored.
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 | 0.014 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".