MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412933345 · doi:10.1080/02701367.2025.2534611

UWorkItOut UWin Program: A RE-AIM Framework Program Evaluation

2025· article· en· W4412933345 on OpenAlexaff
Melissa A. Paré, Irene L. Muir, Krista J. Munroe‐Chandler, Chad A. Sutherland, Todd M. Loughead

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Quarterly for Exercise and Sport · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Development and Social Support
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProgram evaluationPsychologyComputer scienceMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The UWorkItOut UWin program is a 6-week exercise training and counseling intervention aimed to improve the mental health of university students. Benefits of the program include a reduction of anxiety and depression symptoms, physical, psychological, and cognitive outcomes, as well as the development of various coping skills. Despite these favorable outcomes, a process evaluation of the program is needed to understand its effectiveness. The present study conducted a process evaluation using the RE-AIM framework to assess the UWorkItOut UWin program. Data collected from a mixed-method quasi-experimental pretest-posttest single group design was analyzed using the RE-AIM dimensions (i.e. Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance). Sixty participants (n = 60) completed pre-post surveys, exercise training data, self-report physical activity questionnaires, and exit interviews. The program performed well across the RE-AIM dimensions. The program had high adherence rates (reach) and positive outcomes related to mental health, such as decreased anxiety (d = −0.58), depression (d = −0.36), and loss of emotional control (d = −0.42) as well as increased general positive affect (d = 0.47) emotional ties (d = 0.40), and increased physical activity levels (effectiveness). Program staff were valuable for the social support they provided to participants (adoption). However, the program faced barriers with respect to securing dedicated space to conduct the program (implementation) and lacked evidence of long-term maintenance of physical activity participation (maintenance). The program prioritizes a client-centered approach to meet the needs of the participants. As such, continued program evaluation and adaptation is needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.112
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.390 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Quarterly for Exercise and SportSame topicYouth Development and Social SupportFrench-language works237,207