Process evaluation of the Hockey Fans in Training lifestyle intervention (for men with overweight or obesity)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the proven relationship between lifestyle and morbidity and mortality, rates of chronic disease (e.g. obesity) continue to rise in paradox to the myriad of studies supporting lifestyle behaviour change. Men have been less likely to seek out preventative care or lifestyle programs, putting them at risk. In response, Hockey Fans In Training (Hockey FIT) was developed as a group-based, lifestyle intervention leveraging the draw of hockey fandom to engage middle-aged men with overweight or obesity in lifestyle change. Encouraging pilot study results informed the optimization and delivery of the intervention through a cluster randomized controlled trial in 42 sites in Canada and the USA. METHODS: A process evaluation was conducted to evaluate intervention acceptability and fidelity and adaptations. Community-based sites were randomly allocated to Hockey FIT intervention (immediate program start) or wait-list control (12-month delay). Qualitative process evaluation data were collected from intervention sites and included seven virtual participant focus groups and one interview (n = 35 participants), open-ended participant feedback questionnaires (n = 316), interviews with program coaches (n = 22), post-session coach reflections (n = 233), and interviews with implementation partners (n = 16). A process of content analysis by question was performed and data saturation was reached. RESULTS: Themes fell into the following categories: (i) motivations for joining Hockey FIT; (ii) effective program components; and (iii) adaptations and suggested improvements. CONCLUSIONS: The process evaluation detailed success engaging men in lifestyle change using sport fandom, and the importance of capitalizing further on competition within groups to drive behavioural change through user-friendly supports and greater engagement with hockey. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: ClinicalTrials.gov. ID: 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it