One-on-one and group-based physical activity intervention compared to a waitlist control for post-secondary student mental health and social well-being: A 3-arm parallel randomized controlled trial protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Physical activity (PA) service provision in the post-secondary context is recognized as important for promoting student mental health. Nonetheless, most evidence is of poor quality and lacks critical information regarding how the PA programs are designed, delivered, and made accessible to students. This study will examine PA program effectiveness for student mental health and social well-being, as well as implementation processes to offer insight for future research and program scale-up. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Post-secondary students who are physically inactive and experiencing poor mental health will be recruited. A 3-arm parallel Randomized Controlled Trial, using a hybrid effectiveness-implementation design, will be conducted using a collaborative implementation approach. The effects of 6-week supervised one-on-one and group PA, compared to a waitlist control will be examined, with outcomes assessed at baseline (T1), 6-weeks (T2), and 1-month follow-up (T3). Primary outcomes will include immediate post-program changes (T1-T2) in mental health indices, including anxiety, depression, psychological distress, and well-being. Secondary outcomes will include changes from baseline to follow-up (T1-T3) and maintenance effects from post-intervention to follow-up (T2-T3) in mental health indices, as well as changes in social well-being indices (i.e., social connectedness, social support), and PA behavior. A process evaluation will be conducted to explore contextual influences (i.e., fidelity, adherence, reach, acceptability) on the conduct of implementation across PA program delivery styles. Effectiveness data will be analyzed using linear mixed effects modeling. Process evaluation outcomes will be analyzed using a mixed methods evaluation. DISSEMINATION: A knowledge mobilization plan to enhance dissemination of the findings to the intended audiences (i.e., sport and recreation professionals, mental health professionals, students, researchers) has been developed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06350877.
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 | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.005 |
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".