The POWERPLAY workplace physical activity and nutrition intervention for men: Study protocol and baseline characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many health promotion programs hold little "manly" appeal and as a consequence fail to influence men's self-health practices. That said, the workplace can provide an important delivery point for targeted health promotion programs by supporting positive aspects of masculinity. The purpose of this article is to, a) describe the intervention design and study protocol examining the feasibility of a gender-sensitive workplace health promotion intervention focusing on physical activity and healthy eating in male-dominated rural and remote worksites, and b) report baseline findings. This study is a non-randomized quasi-experimental intervention trial examining feasibility and acceptability, and estimated intervention effectiveness. The POWERPLAY program was developed through consultations with men and key workplace personnel, and by drawing on a growing body of men's health promotion research. The program includes masculine print-based messaging, face-to-face education sessions, friendly competition, and self-monitoring concerning physical activity and healthy eating. Male participants (N=139) were recruited from four worksites in northern British Columbia, Canada. Baseline data were collected via computer assisted telephone interview (CATI) survey which assessed physical activity, dietary behavior and workplace environment. This protocol will also be used to collect follow-up data at 6months. A process evaluation, using semi-structured interviews, will be undertaken to assess feasibility and acceptability among participants and worksites. Study outcomes will guide intervention refinement and further testing in a sufficiently powered randomized control trial.
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 | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.008 |
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".