Hockey FIT for Women (HFIT for Women): Evaluating the effectiveness of a healthy lifestyle program for female hockey fans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: More than half of Canadian women are overweight or have obesity, highlighting a need for innovative health promotion strategies to reduce the risk for chronic diseases. Health promotion programs have been shown to offer many benefits including improved health outcomes, and overall well-being. Hockey FIT for Women (HFIT for Women) was adapted from Hockey Fans in Training (HFIT), a 12-week gender-sensitized healthy lifestyle program for men with overweight and obesity, who were fans of their local hockey team. Findings from HFIT studies emphasized a need to adapt the program for women. Objective: Evaluate whether participating in the HFIT for Women program led to improvements in health outcomes. Study Design and Analysis: Data were collected at baseline and 12 weeks. Linear mixed-effects models with time as fixed effects were used to examine changes in outcome variables following the intervention and adjusting for covariates. Setting: Three communities in Ontario, including fitness facilities and major junior hockey teams. Population Studied: Individuals who identified as women, 18+ years of age, and met safety requirements. Intervention: Program was delivered once weekly (90 minutes) and consisted of 50% in-class education and 50% exercise. Outcome Measures: Self-reported average steps/day; physical activity and sitting time (International Physical Activity Questionnaire); healthful eating score-Starting the Conversation Questionnaire; Wellbeing and Support – WHO-5 Wellbeing Index, EQ-5D Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Score, Duke Social Support Index (DSSI); Measured weight and estimated VO2 max. Results: Fifty-nine women were recruited: mean age of 41 years (SD=11.3), average weight of 84.2 kg (SD=20.4) at baseline and 53.8% overall attendance of program sessions. Significant mean change from baseline to 12 weeks (p<0.05) was observed for steps (+1318 steps, 95% CI 51.0 to 2585), total physical activity (+796 MET minutes/week, 95% CI 521 to 1071), healthful eating score (-1.1, 95% CI -1.8 to -0.3,), WHO-5 wellbeing index (+10.2, 95% CI 4.0 to 16.3), and EQ-5D VAS Score (+9.1, 95% CI 5.5 to 12.8). There were no changes in sitting time, DSSI, weight and VO2 max. Conclusions: These results offer evidence supporting the effectiveness of HFIT for Women in enhancing physical activity, healthy eating, and facilitating other positive changes in health outcomes. Future studies should target at-risk women and explore further avenues for scalability.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".