Men’s Physical Activity and Sleep Following a Workplace Health Intervention: Findings from the POWERPLAY STEP Up challenge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The workplace provides an important delivery point for health promotion, yet many programs fail to engage men. A gender-sensitive 8-week team challenge-based intervention targeting increased physical activity was delivered at a petrochemical worksite. The purpose of this study was to examine men’s pre–post physical activity and sleep following the intervention, as well as to explore program acceptability and gather men’s recommendations for health promotion. Pre–post surveys assessed physical activity, sleep, program exposure, acceptability, and suggestions for continued support. Overall, 328 men completed baseline surveys and 186 (57%) completed follow-up surveys. Walking increased by 156.5 min/week, 95% confidence interval (61.2, 251.8), p = .001. Men with higher program exposure increased moderate and vigorous activity 49.4 min more than those with low exposure ( p = .026). Sleep duration and quality were higher postintervention, though changes were modest. Program acceptability was high as was intention to maintain physical activity. Men’s suggestions to enable physical activity involved workplace practices/resources, reducing workload, and leadership support. These findings suggest that a gender-sensitive physical activity workplace intervention showed promise for improving physical activity and sleep among men. The men’s suggestions reflected workplace health promotion strategies, reinforcing the need for employers to support ongoing health promotion efforts.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".