USING THE HEALTH ACTION PROCESS APPROACH (HAPA) MODEL TO PREDICT ADHERENCE TO THE FIFA 11+ PROGRAM IN ELITE FEMALE YOUTH SOCCER
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The FIFA 11+ warm-up program can significantly reduce injury risk in youth soccer, but community uptake of the program has been suboptimal. A health behaviour theory, the Health Action Process Approach (HAPA) model, may identify predictors of program uptake that can inform targeted promotion strategies. Objective To determine whether HAPA constructs (risk perceptions, outcome expectancies, self-efficacy, action and coping plans, facilitators and barriers) predict uptake intention and adherence to the FIFA 11+ in elite female youth soccer. Design Sub-analysis of data from a cluster randomized controlled trial. Setting Elite (Tier 1 and 2) female soccer teams (ages 12–16) competing in Calgary, Canada. Participants 12 teams (coaches n=12, players n=200) who were randomly recruited prior to the 2013 season as wave 1 of the larger trial. Risk factor assessment Participants completed a baseline questionnaire assessing risk perceptions, outcome expectancies and self-efficacy associated with the FIFA 11+, and barriers/facilitators to program use. Main outcome measurements Intention to follow the FIFA 11+ (from the HAPA questionnaire) and prospectively reported adherence during the season. Results Preliminary analyses demonstrate that for coaches, risk perceptions, outcome expectancies, and task self-efficacy accounted for 92.7% of uptake intention variance [F(3,3)=12.71, P=.0327, R2=0.9271]. The most commonly identified facilitator was access to FIFA 11+ materials (videos, manuals). The largest barrier was not having enough time to complete the program. For players, the HAPA model accounted for only 41.4% of intention variance [F(7, 154)=15.53, P<.001, R2=0.4139]. Identified facilitators included having adequate time, personal effort, and enjoying the program. Barriers included poor team leadership, uncooperative teammates, and lack of time. Relationships between HAPA constructs and adherence will also be presented. Conclusions The HAPA model appears to strongly predict coach, but not player, intentions to uptake the FIFA 11+. The development of role-targeted promotion strategies may improve program uptake.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".