The HAT TRICK programme for improving physical activity, healthy eating and connectedness among overweight, inactive men: study protocol of a pragmatic feasibility trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Physical activity, healthy eating and maintaining a healthy weight are associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and cancer and with improved mental health. Despite these benefits, many men do not meet recommended physical activity guidelines and have poor eating behaviours. Many health promotion programmes hold little appeal to men and consequently fail to influence men's health practices. HAT TRICK was designed as a 12-week face-to-face, gender-sensitised intervention for overweight and inactive men focusing on physical activity, healthy eating and social connectedness and was delivered in collaboration with a major junior Canadian ice hockey team (age range 16-20 years). The programme was implemented and evaluated to assess its feasibility. This article describes the intervention design and study protocol of HAT TRICK. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: and a pant waist size of >38'. Each 90 min weekly session included targeted health education and theory-guided behavioural change techniques, as well as a progressive (ie, an increase in duration and intensity) group physical activity component. Outcome measures were collected at baseline, 12 weeks and 9 months and included the following: objectively measured anthropometrics, blood pressure, heart rate, physical activity and sedentary behaviour, as well as self-reported physical activity, sedentary behaviour, diet, smoking, alcohol consumption, sleep habits, risk of depression, health-related quality of life and social connectedness. Programme feasibility data (eg, recruitment, satisfaction, adherence, content delivery) were assessed at 12 weeks via interviews and self-report. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the University of British Columbia Okanagan Behavioural Research Ethics Board (reference no H1600736). Study findings will be disseminated through academic meetings, peer-reviewed publication, web-based podcasts, social media, plain language summaries and co-delivered community presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN43361357,Pre results.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.005 |
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".