Promoting sport participation during early parenthood: a randomized controlled trial protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adult participation in sport is associated with important positive psychosocial outcomes. Despite the multitude of benefits that have been linked to sport participation, adult participation rates in Canada remain low. Parents with young children represent a demographic that may benefit considerably from sport participation, given the prevalence of inactivity coupled with increased levels of psychosocial distress among this group. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of two types of sport participation (individual sport and team sport) on key psychosocial outcomes compared with a "personal time" control condition among parents with young children. METHODS/DESIGN: The three-arm, parallel design, single-blind, randomized controlled trial will compare a team sport condition, an individual sport condition, and a "personal time" control condition over 3 months. Parents are eligible if they have a child under 13 years of age, are not participating in a sport at baseline, and are not meeting Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines. Psychosocial variables (quality of life, relationship satisfaction, social functioning, parental stress, and enjoyment) will be assessed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 3 months. A total of 161 parents have been recruited thus far from the Greater Victoria region in British Columbia, Canada. The study is ongoing with a target goal of 240 participants and an anticipated completion date of December 2021. DISCUSSION: This protocol describes the implementation of a randomized controlled trial that evaluates the effectiveness of sport participation for increasing positive psychosocial outcomes. This information could prove useful for future adult sport participation and potentially inform public health initiatives involving parents and families. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02898285. Registered 13 September 2016.
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 | 0.026 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.063 | 0.009 |
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".