Cluster randomised controlled trial of a multicomponent intervention to support the implementation of policies and practices that promote healthier environments at junior sports clubs: study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A large proportion of children and adolescents participate in organised sport, making community sports clubs a promising setting to support healthy behaviours. To date, however, there have been few interventions conducted in junior sports clubs that have targeted health-promoting practices. The primary aim of this pilot study is to assess the potential effectiveness of an intervention to implement health-promoting policies and practices in junior sporting clubs targeting alcohol and tobacco practices, healthy food and beverage availability, and physical activity via participation in sport. A secondary outcome is to assess the impact of such strategies on child exposure to alcohol and tobacco use at the club, purchasing behaviours by/for children at the club canteen and child sports participation opportunities. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study will employ a cluster randomised controlled trial design and be conducted in metropolitan and regional areas of two Australian states. Randomisation will occur at the level of the football league. Community football clubs with over 40 junior players (players under 18 years) within each league will be eligible to participate. The intervention will be developed based on frameworks that consider the social, cultural and environmental factors that influence health behaviours. Intervention clubs will be supported to implement 16 practices targeting alcohol management, tobacco use, nutrition practices, new player recruitment activity, equal participation for players and the development of policies to support these practices. Trained research staff will collect outcome data via telephone interviews at baseline and follow-up. Interviews will be conducted with both club representatives and parents of junior players. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the University of Newcastle Human Research Ethics Committee (H-2013-0429). The results of the study will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and presentations at conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12617001044314; 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 | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| 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".