RESULTS

The Results are organized by the five RE-AIM dimensions and their indicators supported by quantitative and qualitative data (see Table 1 for the definition of each dimension and its indicators). A summary of key findings from each dimension is provided at the end of each section.

Reach

Reach was assessed using quantitative demographic data and web-based information. We computed indirect, direct, and intended reach as well as a description of end-users (Table 1). Pertaining to the latter, while the target population of the 1616 Program was youth aged 10 to 12 years, we allowed youth between the ages of 8 and 14 to enroll to enhance reach. In relation to indirect reach, 1616 had 1200 followers on Instagram and 43 followers on X (formerly Twitter) at the time of the study. Pertaining to direct reach, over 1400 athletes from 88 teams were enrolled in the program. A total of 727 athletes completed pretest measures. Of the 727 athletes (91% self-identifying boys), 79 athletes belonged to a girls’ team, 393 to a boys’ team, and 243 to a mixed team (n = 12 did not report; Table 2). The majority of athletes self-identified their race as White (83.4%) and fell between the target age group (10 = 27%, 11 = 34%, 12 = 24.8%). Seventy-eight percent of athletes were Canadian, while 22% were American.

The 111 ‘super-user’ athletes (72% self-identifying boys) had similar demographic trends, with the majority of athletes belonging to a boys’ team (n = 56; 50%), followed by mixed (n = 32; 29%), and a girls’ team (n = 12; 11%). Eleven athletes did not report (10%). Athletes primarily self-identified as White (68.5%), and most were 10 (24.3%), 11 (47.7%), and 12 years old (18.9%). Pertaining to the post-program interviews, athletes were 9 (n = 3), 11 (n = 5), and 12 years old (n = 3), with 36% being Canadian and 64% American. With regard to intended reach, parents/guardians registered their youth athletes to receive program communications via a text message, e-mail, or both. In total, 1,015 athletes were subscribed to texting and 1,191 to e-mail notifications. Key message: Whereas the 1616 Program successfully reached the target population (i.e., youth ice hockey players across North America), participants were primarily boys who self-identified as White. As such, purposeful restructuring and recruitment efforts are required to enhance accessibility of the program and develop content that is relevant and meaningful for diverse populations (see Discussion).

Table 2 – Participant Demographic Data

Effectiveness

Effectiveness was measured using athletes’ subjective perceptions of perceived benefits (i.e., beliefs in effectiveness via post-program interviews) and objective benefits of participating in the program (i.e., pretest-posttest, RPP surveys).

Pretest-Posttest Outcome and Process Scores

Table 3 provides the mean difference, t-test statistic, p-value, and confidence interval (CI) for questionnaire responses from pretest to posttest. Although most measures remained unchanged, perceptions of closeness to the coach (Mdiff: -0.13, p < 0.05, CI: [-0.22, 0.04]) and sport enjoyment (Mdiff: -0.10, p < 0.05, CI: [-0.17, 0.03]) decreased significantly from pretest to posttest while moral values increased significantly (Mdiff: 0.15, p < 0.05, CI: [0.01, 0.30]).

Table 3 – Youth Mean Difference, t-statistic, p-value, Confidence Interval for Pre-Post responses

As shown in Table 4 for the post-program evaluation, the majority of athletes responded with a four (yes) or five (very much) on a 5-point scale pertaining to whether they had fun (78%), learned something about themselves (85%), and improved at hockey (75%). In addition, 76% rated a 4 or 5 that they would recommend the program to a friend.

Table 4 – Question, Mean (SD) and Percentage of Responses 4 and Above for Youth Post-program Process Questionnaires

3Cs RPP Outcome and Process Scores (beliefs in effectiveness/participant outcomes)

Table 5 provides the mean difference, t-test statistic, p-value, and confidence interval (CI) for the RPP measures and corresponding process scores for the super-user group. After the Connection segment, athletes reported a significant increase in perceptions of ingroup ties (Mdiff: 0.37, p < 0.001, CI: [0.21, 0.52]) and cognitive centrality (Mdiff: 0.24, p < 0.001, CI: [0.12, 0.36]). After the Confidence segment, athletes reported a significant increase in sport self-confidence (Mdiff: 0.46, p < 0.001, CI: [0.31, 0.60]), task orientation (Mdiff: 0.19, p < 0.05, CI: [0.01, 0.38]), and competitive excitement (Mdiff: 0.22, p < 0.05, CI: [0.05, 0.40]). After the Character segment, significant increases were observed for sportspersonship (Mdiff: 0.29, p < 0.001, CI: [0.14, 0.43]) and moral values (Mdiff: 0.35, p = 0.001, CI: [0.14, 0.54]).

Table 5 – Youth Mean Difference, t-statistic, p-value, Confidence Interval for RPP responses of Super-User Group

After each segment, athletes responded to process questions spanning their perceptions of enjoyment, whether they learned something new, improved at hockey, and were excited for the next section of the program (see Table 6). On a 5-point scale (from not at all to very much), athletes rated enjoyment on average as 4.13 (SD = 0.70) after the Connection segment, 4.32 (SD = 0.71) after the Confidence Segment, and 4.03 (SD = 1.0) after the Character segment. For learning something new, they rated 4.14 (SD = 0.86) after Connection, 4.34 (SD = 0.80) after Confidence, and 4.20 (SD = 0.96) after Character. Athletes also believed they improved at hockey after the Connection (M = 3.92; SD = 0.94), Confidence (M = 4.34; SD = 0.73) and Character (M = 4.03; SD = 1.0) segments. In general, athletes were excited about each program segment (Connection: M = 4.15, SD = 0.99; Confidence: M = 4.35, SD = 0.69; Character: M = 4.03, SD = 1.30).

Table 6 – Mean (SD) for 3Cs Within-Program Process Questionnaires

Post-program Interviews

Overall, participants found the program to be fun and engaging. They spoke about how much they liked the program’s theme (i.e., to develop a ‘buffalo mindset’) and how the motto could be readily applied within their teams. One athlete noted, “The buffalo mindset had the greatest impact on me because we go into and leave the storm together—meaning we go in as a team and we come out as a team. We are together all the time” (A4). Athletes described not only sport-specific benefits (e.g., enhanced hockey-related skills) but also the development of transferable skills (e.g., resilience, teamwork, mental toughness) that had implications within and beyond the sport context (e.g., school): “I’m going to continue to do everything that the program taught me…I feel like I became a better person. Now I try to get consistent 4s on my report card, and I don’t let anything get in my way of being me” (A2). Finally, they also thought that the program enhanced teammate connections including trusting one another more as well as aiming to serve as leaders for their younger teammates.

In relation to what could be improved, some athletes noted that the lack of a team component (i.e., athletes completed the program independently and on their own time) resulted in less discussion between teammates about the program. By providing opportunities for team-level engagement (e.g., watching the videos and discussing content together as a team), a greater sense of a ‘1616 community’ could be achieved: “It would be fun if we could all watch it together [the weekly videos] and reflect together…do it in the locker room, maybe before practice, we go early, and we all watch it” (A8)…“Yeah, being able to do it with your teammates” (A9). Additional suggestions included wanting ‘check-ins’ during the season to provide ongoing feedback (e.g., with Andrew Ladd and other role models from the videos) and to shorten the pre/post-program surveys as they were seen as too long and cumbersome. Key message: Despite minimal pretest-posttest changes, data from the RPP questionnaires (i.e., super-user group) and post-program interviews showed that athletes enjoyed participating in the program and believed they improved across all 3Cs.

Adoption

Adoption was measured via adherence and attrition rates in the post-program and 3Cs RPP questionnaires as well as web-based information. Pertaining to adherence, 69% of athletes indicated that they watched 13 or more of the 16 videos (see Table 4). Similarly, 67% of athletes noted responding to 13 or more of the reflective questions, while only 45% completed 13 or more of the LIO activities. For the 3Cs process questions, the super-user group responded to how many videos they watched after each section, reflection items they listened to, and LIOs they completed (see Table 6). For all three sections, on average, almost all videos were watched (4.26/5, 3.59/4, and 4.17/5 respectively). The majority of athletes also completed the reflection items and LIO activities. Pertaining to video analytics, there was a total of 12,199 video views with 75% of athletes viewing the videos on a mobile device, 21% on a desktop computer, 3% on a tablet, and 1% on a television. In relation to attrition, while 727 athletes completed the pretest questionnaire, only 161 completed the posttest, resulting in a 78% attrition rate. Key message: Although there was a high level of initial adoption (i.e., most athletes engaged with the weekly videos and reflection questions), adherence to the post-program questionnaire was reduced, as evidenced by the attrition rate.

Implementation

Implementation was measured using compatibility, delivery, and contact (see Table 1 for the description of each indicator). For compatibility, post-program responses indicated that the content was very relatable to the athletes’ lives (see Table 4). More specifically, 66% rated four or five (on a five-point scale) on their excitement to take part every week. Most athletes also found the videos enjoyable (82%) and the stories relevant to their lives (77%). The majority (75%) also thought the LIOs helped develop a buffalo mindset. Finally, 80% ranked the reflection questions as a four or five (on a five-point scale) for helping them to understand the main message of each video. The RPP questionnaires asked similar process questions but were tailored to each ‘C’ segment. Athletes, on average, found the videos very enjoyable and relevant to their lives (see Table 6). Generally, reflection items were seen as helpful for understanding the main messages and stories. The LIOs helped the athletes feel connected to their team, confident in themselves, and assisted athletes in working on their character.

Pertaining to delivery, 44% rated a four or five that they spoke to their teammates about the program, while 80% rated a four or five that they spoke to their parents/guardians (see Table 4). The majority of athletes thought being part of the program was ‘cool’ (74% rated a four or five), while almost all (91%) rated a four or five that they really liked hearing from professional athletes. Eighty-eight percent thought the amount of ‘stuff’ shared was ‘just right,’ and 81% thought the length of the weekly player videos was also ‘just right’. In terms of weekly cadence (i.e., contact with participants), athletes received two weekly communications—one on Sunday which included a graphic and video featuring an elite ice hockey player, and the second on Tuesday which included a LIO graphic and video. In total, there were 35 player communication outreach messages sent and 69 graphics or videos shared with the athletes over the course of the program. Key message: The program was delivered as intended, with athletes describing the resources (i.e., videos, reflection items, LIOs) as enjoyable and relevant, and the amount of content shared as ‘just right’. Whereas athletes engaged with their parents/guardians throughout the program, fewer teammate conversations about the program occurred.

Maintenance

Maintenance was assessed via facilitators and barriers (i.e., factors that promoted or hindered participation over time). In relation to facilitators, athletes enjoyed the online format. Given their busy schedules, the flexibility of an online delivery enabled them to watch the videos and complete the activities at their own pace. One athlete noted, “Sometimes, I was busy during the week, so I sat down and watched 2 or 3 videos a day. I had a big schedule this year. But I tried to watch the videos when I had free time” (A2). The athletes also described finding the player stories, reflection items, and LIOs to be age-appropriate, which enhanced the applicability of the material learned and their engagement with the resources/content. Moreover, the length of the videos was described as ‘just right’ in that they were long enough that the athletes could digest the PYD concept while also maintaining interest. One athlete stated:

I think the [length of the videos] was perfect because you don’t want it to be too long because then they can get boring. But if they’re too short, it’s like you’re not working [enough]. If it’s the middle mark, then you get the information you need, and it gets you. I really wanted the next week to come out. (A5)

An additional facilitator that promoted engagement was the incentives provided (e.g., a professional athlete-signed jersey). Indeed, athletes said that when they spoke to their teammates about the program, it was most often around the incentives.

Pertaining to barriers, while the online delivery was a facilitator for some (e.g., flexible scheduling), it was also associated with challenges. Some athletes were confused about how to receive the weekly e-mails/text messages with links to the videos. For example, some received the links directly whereas others’ parents/guardians opted to receive the link first; thus, the athletes depended on their parent/guardian to grant them access. Moreover, some athletes said that teammates received new e-mails/phone numbers throughout the year and as a result, were no longer receiving the video links: “I know a couple of kids were trying to do it [watch the videos], but they couldn’t…this one kid changed his phone number in the middle of it. So, he wasn’t getting sent the videos anymore” (A10). In terms of post-program data collection, the largest barrier experienced by the athletes was the length of the surveys. During the post-program interviews, athletes said that the surveys were interesting but were too overwhelming to complete in their entirety: “I think the whole [program] is really good. Besides the surveys, [they were] really long…they were sometimes difficult to understand” (A7).

In relation to future intentions, 79% of athletes rated a four or five (out of five) that they would want to engage in the program again if they could (see Table 4). Upon program completion, 83% rated a four or five that they would continue to do the things they had learned in this program. Key message: Athletes identified both facilitators (e.g., online delivery) and barriers (e.g., length of surveys) to fully engaging with the program across the 16 weeks. Despite the identified barriers, athletes demonstrated an eagerness to participate in the program again.

DISCUSSION

Researchers have called for evidence-informed evaluations of youth sport programs to monitor whether (and how) their intended outcomes are being achieved (e.g., PYD; Gould, 2019; Holt et al., 2016). In support of these calls, the purpose of this study was to conduct a RE-AIM evaluation (Glasgow et al., 1999) of the novel story-based 1616 Program. The results of this evaluation provide comprehensive insight pertaining to who participated in the program and youths’ perceptions of the outcomes of participating, program adoption and delivery, and the barriers/facilitators to engaging in the program. In the subsequent sections, we discuss the findings in relation to sport-based PYD programming and evaluation literature and highlight study strengths, limitations, and future directions for the 1616 Program. It is also our hope that researchers interested in youth development across contexts will find our process and recommendations useful for their research and evaluation practices.

Pertaining to reach, 88 teams with over 1400 athletes were enrolled in the program, with most falling within the targeted 10-12 age range. Pertaining to gender and race, more boys participated in the program than girls and primarily self-identified as White. Whereas there were targeted efforts to ensure that the program content remained inclusive, diverse, and accessible (e.g., representation of men and women professional, Olympic, and Paralympic athletes, free of cost; Martin et al., 2023), our sample reflects the general demographic trends across North America with girls and Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour continuing to be underrepresented in ice hockey (e.g., Kaida et al., 2021; Tous-Rovirosa et al., 2023; Wong & Dennie, 2021).

With this in mind, it is critical that the research team and program partners consider the ways in which 1616 could be culturally designed, implemented, and evaluated to target barriers of participation (e.g., Forsyth et al., 2021; Kabetu et al., 2021). As one example, researchers suggest that creating and maintaining trusting and respectful relationships with community partners who represent diverse perspectives, values, and beliefs is critical for enhancing program accessibility and sustainability (Whitley et al., 2015). Specific to 1616, collaborating with community sport organizations who seek to enhance representation and diversity both within ice hockey (e.g., Hockey Diversity Alliance: https://hockeydiversityalliance.org) and beyond (e.g., Aboriginal Sport Circle: https://www.aboriginalsportcircle.ca), could support the development of culturally-informed recruitment strategies and program content.

By providing opportunities for the voices of underrepresented groups (as indicated by the reach results) to be intentionally included within the research and curriculum teams could also assist in developing more inclusive and culturally relevant material (Strachan et al., 2018). One potential avenue to achieve this is through community-based participatory research (CBPR). Within this partnership approach, academic and non-academic partners collaboratively engage in all phases of the research process to ultimately, better understand and address community needs (Israel et al., 1998). By engaging in such an approach, program partners, community members, and researchers can draw upon mutual capacity-building (i.e., co-learning) to share and gain knowledge that best supports the development and implementation of programs that meet the priorities of a community (Coppola et al., 2020). For 1616, developing meaningful relationships with community sport partners could support the identification of mutual interests with regard to sport programming for underrepresented youth, while providing opportunities for community members to share resources to inform sustainable and culturally-relevant sport programming. Additionally, implementing culturally competent evaluation practices is also an important consideration. This could include the research team engaging in reflexive practices (e.g., considering their positions of power; Hall, 2020) as well as employing diverse theories and methods that are responsive to participants’ cultures (e.g., non-Western approaches such as talking circles; Kurtz, 2013).

With regard to effectiveness, few changes were observed from pretest to posttest. Whereas coach closeness and enjoyment decreased, moral value increased. Pertaining to the former, this program was self-directed and depended on the initiative of the coaches to discuss the program’s content in a team setting. In future iterations, developing coach-athlete specific content and activities may help to enhance coach closeness. Regarding the decrease in enjoyment, this could be due to a high baseline level of excitement for the program. The ‘welcome’ video was released to athletes before completing the baseline questionnaire. The eagerness to participate in the program upon receiving video content and the exposure to professional athletes before baseline questionnaire completion could have resulted in a ceiling effect, which left little room for improvement (Šimkovic & Träuble, 2019). Moving forward with this program specifically, but also for those interested in evaluating change in their programming, distributing the baseline questionnaire before accessing tailored resources may provide a more accurate representation of pre-program scores. In contrast, an increase in moral value was observed. Research suggests that when exposed to social agents who promote teamwork and prosocial behaviours, engagement in moral behaviours increases (McLaren et al., 2021). Accordingly, having athlete role models discuss the importance of these concepts with the youth participants could have positively influenced their moral value.

More broadly, it is important to highlight that there was a 78% attrition rate for pretest-posttest questionnaire completion and, thus, a small sample size for analyses. Given that efficacy measures often underestimate the impact of an intervention when attrition rates are high (Eysenbach, 2005), exploring ways to improve post-program questionnaire completion is critical for future iterations of the program (e.g., condensing the questionnaires). Of note, this lack of post-program questionnaire completion does not automatically suggest that the athletes were not engaged across the 16 weeks, as evidenced by the process assessments both within and post-program in addition to the total video views.

Along these lines, despite the lack of significant pretest-posttest outcomes, process-related questions and the super-user RPP data highlight that athletes enjoyed the program and thought they improved across all 3Cs. As one example, athletes reported feeling more connected with their teammates (ingroup ties) and that their team was now more important to them (cognitive centrality). Within this section of the program, activities and reflection questions targeted developing new friendships with teammates as well as team-building activities (e.g., committing to a team mantra), all of which could have positively impacted connection. Similarly, there were also increases in indicators of confidence (i.e., self-confidence, task orientation, competitive excitement) and character (i.e., sportspersonship and moral values). These findings align with our previous PoC testing (Côté et al., 2023), whereby only significant increases in RPP scores were observed. Importantly, RPP questionnaires have been found to elicit greater self-awareness pertaining to the degree of change that has occurred between time points and thus, overcomes various pretest drawbacks (e.g., unclear pre-test frame of reference, response shift bias; Little et al., 2020).

Pertaining to adoption, almost three quarters of respondents watched 13 or more videos (out of 16) and completed the corresponding reflection questions (i.e., adherence), yet less than half completed the same amount of LIO activities. Whereas this evaluation examined individual member adoption, future evaluations should examine adoption at the team and community sport league/organizational levels (e.g., Koorts & Gillison, 2015). In doing so, program partners may be able to identify context-specific factors that either supported or hindered individual-level adoption (e.g., coach and sport league ‘buy-in’).

Within the post-program questionnaires and interviews, athletes stated they were excited about each segment of the 1616 program but that each week required more time than expected to engage with all three resources (i.e., video, reflection, and LIO). Given that athletes found the program to be fun but could not fully engage due to time constraints (e.g., balancing athletics with school), altering the cadence of the program in the future would be worthwhile. For instance, implementing biweekly versus weekly programming could reduce participant burden while providing more flexibility as to when athletes choose to engage with the content. Moreover, having ‘check-ins’ throughout the season with the professional athletes could give the youth more opportunities to share iterative feedback that could be integrated during the program (rather than post-program) to meet the needs of current end-users (Shaikh et al., 2020).

In relation to implementation, post-program and across the 3Cs RPP questionnaires, athletes discussed that the content of each video was very relatable to their own lives, that the videos supported them in completing the goals of the program (e.g., developing a buffalo mindset), and the reflection questions were useful for understanding the main message of each video. In addition, although athletes spoke about the program with their parents/guardians, little communication occurred with teammates. Given that the underlying theme of 1616 is to band together with teammates, athletes did request more team-based program components (e.g., group activities and opportunities to watch the videos together). To address this feedback, developing additional coach/athlete leader-led activities and reflection questions to be completed within a team setting may help to facilitate teammate interaction. As one example, when introducing the concept of cohesion, various team-building strategies could be employed such as developing team goals or identifying team members’ roles and responsibilities (Bloom et al., 2008). Finally, despite athletes discussing the time constraints of their schedules, they reported that the amount of material shared was ‘just right’. Thus, and as previously alluded to, providing athletes with more time to complete the weekly activities (i.e., biweekly content), rather than weekly, or shortening the length of the program overall may improve engagement.

For maintenance, athletes discussed both facilitators and barriers to fully participating in the program. In terms of facilitators, the opportunity to win prizes from the program (e.g., a hockey jersey signed by a professional ice hockey player) was a highlight. Considering more frequent prizes in future iterations could enhance engagement throughout the program. In relation to barriers, given that this program involved athletes, parents/guardians, and their coaches, there was sometimes miscommunication between parties pertaining to who was to be receiving the online material. Streamlining the program’s online content/resource portal to clearly highlight how the athlete content would be delivered and to whom could enhance the online user experience. Specific to post-program questionnaires, athletes described completing the surveys as daunting and at times, difficult to understand. Whereas the research team sought to employ a rigorous, evidence-informed evaluation, the length and wording of the validated questionnaires may have negatively influenced post-program completion rates. A common challenge when conducting partnered research is balancing researchers’ goals (i.e., producing high quality research) with partners’ practical objectives and supporting the needs of end-users (Ettekal et al., 2017). As such, prior to the next iteration of 1616, it would be beneficial for the invested sport partners (e.g., Ladd Foundation, research team, youth athletes) to reflect on the ways in which the integrity of the research can be upheld without negatively impacting participant experiences. Reassuringly, despite the various barriers discussed, the majority of athletes stated they would engage in the program again and continue to implement what they had learned in their lives outside the program.

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions

A key strength of this study was the evidence-informed nature of the design, implementation, and evaluation of the 1616 Program. More specifically, researchers have called for sport programs that use role modelling to be: (a) underpinned by theoretical constructs, (b) co-created with invested partners, and (c) objectively assessed using appropriate evaluation methods (Kelly et al., 2023). Of note, 1616 supports all three recommendations. For instance, this program is grounded in existing sport PYD literature and more specifically, the Personal Assets Framework (e.g., Côté et al., 2020). Given that integrating theoretical frameworks within sport role model-led program designs has been found to positively elicit impact (Cleland et al., 2012; Kelly et al., 2023), within this type of programming it is important to consider which existing framework(s) may best support the intended outcomes from the outset of intervention development. With regard to co-creation, our partners (i.e., the Ladd Foundation) were included throughout program development, implementation, and evaluation. By engaging in a collaborative decision-making process (see Martin et al., 2023 for more detail), target knowledge user needs were integrated from the outset of program creation, thereby enhancing its relative impact (Kelly et al., 2023).

In relation to program evaluation, researchers have identified a lack of programmatic assessment for sport offerings that specifically use role modelling (Kelly et al., 2023). To address this concern within the current evaluation, we adopted a mixed-methods design using the well-established RE-AIM framework (Glasgow et al., 1999). In doing so, all five indicators were assessed resulting in a comprehensive evaluation of both program efficacy and effectiveness (Kessler et al., 2013). Given that not addressing all RE-AIM indicators has been cited as a limitation of sport-based program evaluations (e.g., Lawrason et al., 2021; Saizew et al., 2022), using both qualitative and quantitative methods throughout an evaluation is an important consideration.

Notwithstanding the many strengths of this study, there are nevertheless limitations that need to be addressed. First, while the adoption of a theoretical framework (the Personal Assets Framework) served as a study strength, it is also important to acknowledge the limitations of this framework and its generalizability across contexts and cultures. For instance, whereas the 4Cs of PYD have received support within sport literature, this research has been typically conducted in a Western context (Strachan et al., 2018). As a result, these outcomes may not resonate with the lived experiences of youth across diverse cultures, values, and belief systems. As one example, Strachan et al. (2018) engaged in talking circles with Indigenous youth to shed light on the meanings they attached to the 5Cs of PYD. Specific to connection, youth spoke about not only their relationships with teammates, but also a connection to land and culture. As such, including activities that incorporate diverse belief systems and ways of knowing, such as reflection questions that centre around youths’ connections to the land, may assist in developing relevant and inclusive 1616 programming. Similarly, such an inclusive approach to program development should be considered for any partnerships interested in facilitating youth development, regardless of context.

Second, even though purposeful efforts were made to reduce time constraints (e.g., shortened RPP questionnaires), we had large attrition rates across the pretest-posttest and 3Cs RPP measures. While condensing the questionnaires and shortening the total length of the program remain key priorities moving forward, it is also important for the researchers and invested partners to determine how to best integrate the evaluation into the program itself. For instance, by embedding questionnaire items into the end of each weekly video, end-users may be more likely to provide feedback. In addition, while focus groups were selected as the ideal method for post-program interviews with youth (e.g., enhanced feelings of safety, reduced power imbalance; Adler et al., 2019), scheduling conflicts resulted in the majority of interviews being completed individually. Thus, it is integral for researchers to discuss with program partners and end-users how to best facilitate post-program engagement. For instance, in this evaluation, athletes highlighted that providing incentives (e.g., signed jerseys) as well as athlete ‘check-ins’ (e.g., online video calls with program role models) could support participation in a more iterative approach to post-program feedback. Altogether, by harnessing the strengths of this study while addressing its limitation, we hope that this work can serve as a guide for researchers interested in co-producing and evaluating PYD sport programming in the future.