A RE-AIM evaluation of a sport-based trauma-sensitive youth development programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Programmes using a trauma-sensitive sport model can support underserved youth to feel safe, participate fully, and build life skills. A RE-AIM framework was used to evaluate the implementation of a trauma-sensitive sport model to youth programming. Three clubs of a Canadian youth-serving organisation attended training and implemented programming from 2017–2019. Multiple methods including interviews, logbooks, and assessments helped map each RE-AIM dimension across training, delivery, and programme outcomes. Reach: 218 youth attended over the two years (144 boys, 67 girls, 2 unidentified; Mage = 9.12 ± 1.26); reach was facilitated by youth being drawn to sport but challenged by attrition. Effectiveness: Leaders reported successes in youth’s life skills such as willingness, peer support, and self-regulation (↑9.16%, significant at t[53] = −8.00, p < .001, d = −.42); this effectiveness was facilitated by the intentional structure, relationship focus, and long-term engagement. Adoption: 18 leaders participated in training and programme delivery, but adoption was challenged by leader burden and turnover. Implementation: Leaders were successful in facilitating a structured programme with a life skills focus, but were challenged by time and scheduling limitations. Maintenance: Leaders valued the programme for their youth, but their participation was contingent on implementation success, continued funding, and leader retention. The results brought insights of salient processes and outcomes in delivering a trauma-sensitive sport model to youth programming, and what capacities and resources are necessary to deliver and sustain quality programmes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| 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".