Effectiveness of a Walking Football Program for Middle-Aged and Older Men With Type 2 Diabetes: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies on walking football have found positive effects on health; however, there are still several research gaps when applying walking football programs for patients with type 2 diabetes. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to test the effectiveness of a walking football exercise program on glycemic control and cardiovascular risk factors in middle-aged and older men with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: The study will be run as a randomized controlled trial with a 6-month duration in Portugal. Eligible participants will be randomized using a 1:1 ratio for intervention or control groups and compared using an intention-to-treat analysis. The intervention will consist of a walking football exercise program. The control group will continue with usual care in primary health care units. The primary outcome will be the mean difference in glycated hemoglobin between intervention and control groups after 6 months. Secondary outcomes include the mean differences in fasting blood glucose, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, body mass index, waist circumference, fat-free mass, and fat mass. Additionally, secondary outcomes include the incidence of exercise-related injuries and adverse events and the walking football exercise program's cost-utility. RESULTS: The study protocol is being prepared to be submitted to the Health Ethics Committee of the Northern Regional Health Administration, Portugal. After approval, participant recruitment will start in primary health care units in Porto's metropolitan area by family medicine doctors. CONCLUSIONS: Walking football might have the potential to be effective in improving glycemic control and cardiovascular risk factors, with a low rate of exercise-related injuries and adverse events and a good cost-utility ratio. Therefore, walking football may be a sustainable intervention strategy for type 2 diabetes management. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/28554.
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 | 0.046 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.083 | 0.013 |
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".