Acceptability of the POWERPLAY Program: A Workplace Health Promotion Intervention for Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The workplace health promotion program, POWERPLAY, was developed, implemented, and comprehensively evaluated among men working in four male-dominated worksites in northern British Columbia, Canada. The purpose of this study was to explore the POWERPLAY program's acceptability and gather recommendations for program refinement. The mixed-method study included end-of-program survey data collected from 103 male POWERPLAY program participants, interviews with workplace leads, and field notes recorded during program implementation. Data analyses involved descriptive statistics for quantitative data and inductive analysis of open-ended questions and qualitative data. Among participants, 70 (69%) reported being satisfied with the program, 51 (51%) perceived the program to be tailored for northern men, 56 (62%) believed the handouts provided useful information, and 75 (74%) would recommend this program to other men. The findings also highlight program implementation experiences with respect to employee engagement, feedback, and recommendations for future delivery. The POWERPLAY program provides an acceptable approach for health promotion that can serve as a model for advancing men's health in other contexts.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".