Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31470830›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2019

Who is responsible for assessing children's weight status? - a qualitative study of health professionals in regional Australia.

Kamila Davidson, Helen Vidgen, Elizabeth Denney-Wilson, Lynne Daniels

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Barriers and enablers to effective weight management for people living with overweight and obesity: A rapid scoping review.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kamila DavidsonSchool of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove Campus, O Block, A Wing, Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove, Brisbane, Queensland, 4059, Australia. kamila.davidson@connect.qut.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1050-8313
Helen VidgenSchool of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove Campus, O Block, A Wing, Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove, Brisbane, Queensland, 4059, Australia.
Elizabeth Denney-WilsonSydney Nursing School, The Universtiy of Sydney, 88 Mallett St, Sydney, New South Wales, 2050, Australia.
Lynne DanielsSchool of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove Campus, O Block, A Wing, Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove, Brisbane, Queensland, 4059, Australia.
Queensland University of Technology · AU

Funding

Queensland University of Technology Research Training Program Stipend
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrently in Australia there is a lack of clarity regarding routine assessment of primary school aged children's weight status despite it being the first step in the identification of overweight and obesity. The National Health and Medical Research Council Obesity Guidelines recommend primary health care professionals include routine weight status assessment in consultations with children yet research suggests this rarely occurs in practice. This study aimed to determine the views of primary health care professionals regarding routine weight status assessment in primary school aged children and to establish the barriers to assessing children's weight status.

methodsUsing the case study of a regional town, Rockhampton, purposeful sampling was used to represent the key primary health care settings and professional groups. Interviews were conducted with 31 health professionals. Data were collected and analysed guided by two frameworks, the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behaviour and Theoretical Domains Frameworks.

resultsEight themes emerged from data and these were relevant to the three levels of influence on the routine weight status of assessment, system, setting and individual. System level themes related to having a formalised program for the undertaking of routine weight status assessment in primary school aged children, increasing the population's awareness about the importance of the weight status check and limited public health services available for management of childhood overweight and obesity. Setting level theme regarded the location where routine weight status in primary school aged children could be undertaken. Four themes at the individual level of influence on the routine weight status assessment related to the primary health professionals' roles, barriers to assessing children's weight status, methods of weight status assessment and starting a weight related conversations with families.

conclusionThe Government, primary health care services, professional organisations and associations as well as health professionals must commit to long-term implementation of the Obesity Guidelines. Immediate action to improve the undertaking of routine weight status assessment in children must be taken by each health service and health professional. Strategies should aim to positively affect motivation to assess children's weight status as it is the central component in creating change in practice.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelPrimary Health CareAustraliaChildHealth PersonnelHumansPediatric ObesityPractice Guidelines as TopicQualitative ResearchChildrenGuidelinesHealth professionalsObesityOverweightPrimary health careWeight status assessment

Identifiers

PMID31470830
PMCPMC6716851
OpenAlexW2970373027

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.