Optimization of the Hockey Fans in Training (Hockey FIT) weight loss and healthy lifestyle program for male hockey fans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The health outcomes of men continue to be poorer than women globally. Challenges in addressing this problem include difficulties engaging men in weight loss programs as they tend to view these programs as contrary to the masculine narrative of independence and self-reliance. Researchers have been turning towards sports fans to engage men in health promotion programs as sports fans are typically male, and tend to have poor health habits. METHODS: Developed from the highly successful gender-sensitized Football Fans in Training program, Hockey Fans in Training (Hockey FIT) recruited 80 male hockey fans of the London Knights and Sarnia Sting who were overweight or obese into a weekly, 90-minute classroom education and group exercise program held over 12 weeks; a 40-week minimally-supported phase followed. A process evaluation of the Hockey FIT program was completed alongside a pragmatic randomized controlled trial and outcome evaluation in order to fully explore the acceptability of the Hockey FIT program from the perspectives of coaches delivering and participants engaged in the program. Data sources included attendance records, participant focus groups, coach interviews, assessment of fidelity (program observations and post-session coach reflections), and 12-month participant interviews. RESULTS: Coaches enjoyed delivering the program and found it simple to deliver. Men valued being among others of similar body shape and similar weight loss goals, and found the knowledge they gained through the program helped them to make and maintain health behaviour changes. Suggested improvements include having more hockey-related information and activities, greater flexibility with timing of program delivery, and greater promotion of technology support tools. CONCLUSIONS: We confirmed Hockey FIT was an acceptable "gender-sensitized" health promotion program for male hockey fans who were overweight or obese. Minor changes were required for optimization, which will be evaluated in a future definitive trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02396524 (Clinicaltrials.gov). Date of registration: Feb 26, 2015.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".