Process evaluation of HAT TRICK: feasibility, acceptability and opportunities for programme refinement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preventive lifestyle interventions are needed to address challenges in engaging men in conventional health programmes. This process evaluation examined the feasibility and acceptability of HAT TRICK, a gender-sensitized programme targeting physical activity, healthy eating and social connectedness. A mixed-methods approach was utilized to examine the effectiveness of recruitment and selection processes, facilitators' experiences and challenges and participant experiences with the programme. Evaluation measures included participant flow data and baseline assessments, facilitator debriefs, a post-intervention process evaluation questionnaire and telephone interviews with a subsample of participants. Participants (n = 62) were overweight (body mass index [BMI] > 25 kg m-2) and inactive (<150 min of moderate to vigorous physical activity [MVPA] per week) men with a mean age 51 ± 10.1 years. Participants reported high levels of satisfaction, acceptability and engagement with the intervention programme, content and resources. Facilitators noted the importance of creating a friendly, non-judgemental environment and observed that intervention content was best received when delivered in an interactive and engaging manner. Future programme refinements should consider strategies for strengthening social support, as well as opportunities for leveraging participants' interest in other health-related issues (e.g. mental health). Findings yield valuable information about the implementation of gender-sensitized interventions for men and demonstrate the importance of male-specific engagement strategies for reaching and engaging overweight, inactive men.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".