Hockey Fans in Training (Hockey FIT): Rationale, design, and baseline characteristics from a cluster randomized controlled trial in men with overweight or obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Previous research highlights the need for effective lifestyle interventions for men. Hockey Fans in Training (Hockey FIT) was developed as a pragmatic healthy lifestyle program tailored to men with overweight or obesity. This paper overviews the rationale, program details, and design of a recently completed cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) of Hockey FIT. Participant engagement and baseline characteristics are also described. Methods The RCT evaluated the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and implementation of Hockey FIT. Forty-two sites in Canada and the United States were randomized to either the Hockey FIT intervention group or wait-list control group. Participants were men, aged 35–65 years, with a body mass index (BMI) ≥27 kg/m 2 . Hockey FIT is a group-based, off-ice, in-person healthy lifestyle program, including both a 3 - month active phase and a 9-month minimally-supported phase. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, 3, and 12 months. The primary outcome was weight loss at 12 months. Results The design of the cluster RCT incorporates evaluations of participant health outcomes, program implementation, and broader healthcare system impact. In the RCT, 1397 participants were assessed for eligibility and 997 were enrolled. Most participants heard about the program through social media or hockey team emails. Participants averaged 49 years of age, had BMI values of 35.3 kg/m 2 , were predominately white, and had varying levels of education. Conclusion The intended audience for Hockey FIT was recruited successfully, however, targeted recruitment to better engage diverse populations is warranted. This paper affords a useful outline for evaluating future lifestyle interventions tailored to men. This trial was registered on August 17, 2018 with ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT03636282 ).
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 | 0.028 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".