Improving Men’S Health Through A Tailored Healthy Lifestyle Program Powered By Sport Fandom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Innovative approaches are needed to engage men in lifestyle behaviour change programs. Hockey Fans in Training (Hockey FIT) is a gender-sensitized lifestyle program for men and designed to appeal to hockey fans through support from their local team. PURPOSE: To examine the effectiveness of Hockey FIT on objectively-measured health indicators in men with overweight or obesity. METHODS: A pragmatic cluster randomized trial was conducted whereby 42 sites in Canada and the United States were randomly assigned to either intervention (Hockey FIT) or control (wait-list for 12 months). Sites were selected based on partnerships with local major junior/professional hockey teams and implementation partners. Participants were men, aged 35-65 years, with a body mass index (BMI) 27 kg/m2, and deemed safe to exercise. Hockey FIT included a 3-month active phase led by certified coaches (12 weekly, 90-minute sessions incorporating both education and exercise) and a 9-month minimally-supported phase. In-person measurements were done at baseline (T0), 3 months (T1), and 12 months (T2); outcomes measured included: weight [percentage (%) change from T0], systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and predicted maximal oxygen uptake (pVO2max). Analyses were conducted using linear mixed effects models for cluster design and repeated measures. RESULTS: Participants (n = 997) were men [mean age: 48.6 years (± 8.3 SD); mean BMI: 35.3 kg/m2 (± 6.1)]. By T1, Hockey FIT achieved greater % change in weight, decreased systolic BP, decreased HbA1c, and increased pVO2max (vs control); these changes were maintained to T2 for all outcomes except HbA1c. For diastolic BP, there were no differences at T1; however, by T2, a greater decrease in diastolic BP was observed in Hockey FIT (vs. control) [see Table 1]. CONCLUSION: The power of sport fandom was effective in engaging men and Hockey FIT led to significant improvements in health outcomes.Table 1 - Difference (Intervention – Control) Outcome Cluster (N) Mean (95% CI) p value Change in weight, % At 3 months 42(734) -2·43 (-2·90, -1·97) <0.0001 At 12 months 41(598) -1·09 (-1·95, -0·24) 0.01 Change in systolic BP, mm Hg At 3 months 42 (732) -3·48 (-5·82, -1·13) 0.005 At 12 months 41(597) -3·17 (-5·60, -0·74) 0.01 Change in diastolic BP, mm Hg At 3 months 42 (731) -1·13 (-2·86, 0·60) 0.20 At 12 months 41 (597) -1·93 (-3·74, -0·13) 0.036 Change in HbA1c, % At 3 months 42 (729) -0·17 (-0·25, -0·10) <0·0001 At 12 months 41 (596) 0·06 (-0·05, 0·17) 0.3 Change in pVO2max, mL/kg/min At 3 months 42 (713) 3·90 (2·73, 5·08) <0.0001 At 12 months 41 (578) 3·54 (2·28, 4·80) <0.0001
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".