Abstract
Many undergraduate women are physically inactive, with negative implications for wellbeing. Peer-mentorship programs, pairing learners with experienced peer-coaches, may enhance participation though research remains limited. This protocol paper strengthens methodological transparency and replicability by describing a 6-week randomized trial examining a campus-based peer-mentorship exercise intervention grounded in the self-determination theory. Thirty-three inactive undergraduate women were randomized to receive supportive-coaching from six trained student-mentors or exercise independently. Motivation, psychological wellbeing, and exercise behavior will be assessed and study involvement experiences explored. This novel approach combines facility tours with hybrid mentorship, a first in the pandemic-recovery era, which may guide campus programming.
Keywords
Introduction
Regular physical activity is a key determinant of wellbeing (Lacombe et al., 2019). Yet, despite positive outcomes including improved strength, mood, and reduced chronic disease risk, nearly 50% of Canadian adults do not meet national recommendations (Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology [CSEP], 2021; Government of Canada, 2023; Lacombe et al., 2019). As a result, identifying avenues to increase movement rates remains a public health priority (Lacombe et al., 2019). This is especially true for postsecondary students (Lesser & Nienhuis, 2020).
While the university years offer opportunities for personal and professional growth, they also introduce stressors that can contribute to unhealthy habits (Thompson et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2023). Students often deprioritize their health in favor of academic demands, with undergraduate women reporting greater academic distress and lower exercise engagement than men (Carballo-Fazanes et al., 2020; March-Amengual et al., 2022; Yangdon et al., 2021). This disparity is rooted in childhood and reinforced by societal norms that have historically afforded men greater opportunities to develop exercise-related knowledge, confidence, and skills (Carballo-Fazanes et al., 2020; Espada et al., 2023).
COVID-19-related disruptions further exacerbated existing barriers to undergraduate women's exercise engagement (Fabiano & Pearson, 2025; World Health Organization, n.d.). Canadian and international evidence suggests that reduced facility access was associated with declines in exercise engagement, weight gain, and poorer diets among university students, particularly women (Bell et al., 2023; Brancaccio et al., 2021; Ferrara et al., 2022; Pellerine et al., 2022). Even after restrictions were removed, undergraduate women continue to report lower exercise engagement in the pandemic-recovery era, a pattern not mirrored by men (Fabiano & Pearson, 2025; Hernández-Segura et al., 2023; Vučković et al., 2022). This has been attributed to a lack of confidence and ability, likely due to fewer traditional opportunities such as sports and physical education, that previously built foundational skills during childhood (Fabiano & Pearson, 2025). Taken together, these findings underscore the need for targeted interventions to support undergraduate women's exercise competence.
Undergraduate women's exercise engagement is also shaped by their social environments, as social networks can strongly influence health behaviors (Madtha et al., 2022); for example, students with inactive friends are less likely to exercise (Thomas et al., 2019). This is alarming given that university habits can shape long-term behavior patterns (Telama, 2009). Peer-support may help to build confidence and sustain motivation during this period (Thomas et al., 2019; Van Luchene & Delens, 2021), especially given university is often undergraduate women's first introduction to gym settings (Peters et al., 2019; Wilson et al., 2022). Additionally, socially supported, confidence-building strategies like facility tours remain underexplored in postsecondary settings, despite evidence suggesting they can improve motivation and comfort (Espada et al., 2023; Van Luchene & Delens, 2021). In sum, these findings suggest that interventions targeting undergraduate women's exercise engagement should consider not only individual barriers, but also the social and environmental conditions that shape motivation.
Self-determination theory offers a useful framework for understanding how internal and external factors influence motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1980; Ryan & Deci, 2000). The theory conceptualizes motivation as a six-point continuum ranging from amotivation, reflecting a lack of value or intention, to intrinsic regulation, where behavior is driven by personal enjoyment Ryan & Deci, 2000). A related subtheory identifies three basic psychological needs that serve as predictors of behavior (Deci & Ryan, 1980). These include a sense of volition (autonomy), feelings of mastery (competence), and a sense of belongingness (relatedness). When these needs are supported, motivation for exercise engagement is more likely to increase.
In line with these self-determination theory principles, motivational interviewing may be a practical strategy to address undergraduate women's low exercise engagement. Commonly used in health coaching, motivational interviewing is a client-centred approach that supports behavior change by increasing intrinsic motivation through values exploration and collaborative communication (Miller & Rollnick, 2023; Ryan & Deci 2000). Rather than directing behavior, motivational interviewing empowers individuals to identify their own reasons for change though fostering self-direction (autonomy), building capability (competence), and supporting relationships (relatedness; Miller & Rollnick, 2023), aligning with the three psychological needs associated with the self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1980, 2012). In undergraduate exercise contexts, motivational interviewing has been shown to improve adherence by helping students set realistic goals for behavior change (deJonge et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2020; Yan et al., 2023). Together, these findings suggest that a peer-mentorship program grounded in self-determination theory and informed by motivational interviewing may offer a promising approach to supporting undergraduate women's exercise engagement. The present study will address this gap through testing the effectiveness of the “SHINE” Program (Supporting Her In Navigating Exercise): a structured 6-week peer-mentorship program offered at a mid-sized university in Ontario, Canada. Through describing the study protocol using a theoretical lens, this article provides a comprehensive account of the project rationale, intervention components, and planned analyses prior to full outcome interpretation. Protocol papers are an important contribution to the literature because they strengthen methodological transparency, support replication, and reduce the risk of selective outcome reporting (Ohtake & Childs, 2014).
Literature Review
Peer-mentorship programs pair experienced and less experienced peers to build knowledge and skills (Peirson, 1993), and often outperform traditional approaches due to their individualized, collaborative nature (Ginis et al., 2013; Miller & Rollnick, 2023). In such programs, peer mentors often function in a coaching capacity, facilitating behavior change while maintaining the supportive relationship central to mentorship (e.g., deJonge et al., 2021; Keeler et al., 2021; Kirby et al., 2024). To enhance cohesion, women often prefer same-gender mentors due to shared experiences (Lin et al., 2021). Exercise-based peer-mentorship programs typically recruit mentors with positive attitudes and exercise knowledge, often from health-based disciplines (deJonge et al., 2021; Keeler et al., 2021; Kirby et al., 2024). Although peer-mentorship programs have proven effective across populations, they mainly target adolescents (Petosa & Smith, 2014), leaving limited research among undergraduate women (deJonge et al., 2021; Keeler et al., 2021; Kirby et al., 2024). This is a notable shortcoming as undergraduate women comprise nearly 60% of Canadian university students and face unique behavior change challenges as compared to men (Statistics Canada, 2024).
Despite the benefits of social support, few studies have explored peer-mentorship programs that use paired-exercise engagement, specifically, only study implemented women-specific programing (Yan et al., 2023), while the others were mixed-gendered. For example, deJonge et al. (2021) examined a 6-week peer-mentorship program for 68 university students seeking mental health support using a nonexperimental design. Mentors from psychology and kinesiology backgrounds, trained in motivational interviewing and coaching-based communication strategies, facilitated weekly 1 hour sessions involving behavior change discussions, goal setting, and exercise. Mixed-methods findings showed reduced distress and improved activity adherence, supporting the value of health coaching-based peer-mentorship programs for groups facing exercise barriers. Likewise, Kirby et al. (2024) conducted a nonexperimental 8-week peer-mentorship program for inactive university students, pairing participants (n = 10) with movement-expert peers (n = 9) who used a coaching-informed mentorship approach to provide encouragement and accountability. Participants tracked weekly exercise sessions via Fitbits, supporting self-monitoring as a key behavior change strategy. Although post-program surveys showed non-significant changes in exercise engagement, focus groups revealed increased perceptions of social support, enjoyment, energy, competence, and reduced stress that were attributed to study involvement. The authors recommended further exploration of participant–mentor relationships to better understand engagement. Similarly, Keeler et al. (2021) conducted an 8-week quasi-experimental exercise peer-mentorship program comparing university students with depression symptoms (n = 10) to a non-depressed control group (n = 13). Participants exercised twice weekly with student mentors who had exercise and sport psychology knowledge and were trained in coaching-informed techniques. Following the intervention, surveys showed greater improvements in participation, self-efficacy, basic psychological needs, and depression symptoms in the intervention group, highlighting the potential of peer-mentorship programs for enhancing wellbeing in other populations.
Collectively, these studies underscore the role that peer-mentorship programs grounded in health coaching principles can play in promoting physical and mental health (deJonge et al., 2021; Keeler et al., 2021; Kirby et al., 2024). However, several gaps remain. Because most coaching interventions span 8- to- 10 weeks (e.g., Keeler et al., 2021; Kirby et al., 2024; Yan et al., 2023), shorter experimental designs warrant further investigation, particularly in postsecondary contexts where students often face time constraints.
Further research is also needed on coaching-informed, theory-based strategies for inactive university students, particularly programs tailored to women (Fabiano & Pearson, 2025). Virtual communication may foster competence and relatedness through ongoing correspondence (Fried et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2020), supporting coaching processes such as ongoing feedback, accountability, and goal tracking; however, studies integrating this feature in a peer-mentor context remain limited.
Given that lifelong health habits are often formed in university (Gordon-Larsen et al., 2004), addressing undergraduate women's exercise barriers remains important and underexplored. From a health coaching perspective, this period represents a critical window for developing self-regulation and sustainable behavior change strategies (Fabiano & Pearson, 2025; Jordan, 2021). Although social support is a key motivator for undergraduate women, exercise-based peer-mentorship programs rarely integrate virtual communication, guided facility tours, or experimental designs with control groups (Goncalves et al., 2023; Keeler et al., 2021; Kirby et al., 2024). Thus, a theory-informed peer-mentorship program that targets gender-specific barriers and integrates social support warrants exploration.
Purpose and Hypothesis
This protocol paper describes the SHINE Program, a 6-week peer-mentorship intervention grounded in self-determination theory and designed to support undergraduate women's exercise engagement. Specifically, the study will evaluate its effectiveness on psychological constructs and exercise behavior by assessing: (1) exercise motivation; (2) psychological distress and exercise engagement; and (3) program experiences.
Given the known benefits associated with heightened exercise engagement, it is hypothesized that all undergraduate women will show positive changes in the dependent variables, with greater gains in the intervention group (deJonge et al., 2021; Keeler et al., 2021; Kirby et al., 2024). Qualitative findings gleaned through open questions will provide in-depth insights into program-related experiences and outcomes.
Methodology
Study Overview
A pilot randomized controlled trial was chosen to compare a parallel group exercise program with and without peer support, following the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines (Hopewell et al., 2025). To improve accessibility and ecological validity (Brown et al., 2024; Dooris et al., 2020), the program was held at the host institution's campus gym, as student tuition includes a membership. The program was developed in partnership with the host institution's Athletics department, and registered with the National Clinical Trials Registry, NCT06823336.
The intervention was informed by self-determination theory and operationalized through a motivational interviewing-informed peer-mentorship program (Deci & Ryan, 2012; Miller & Rollnick, 2023). A 6-week duration has elicited positive results in the literature (e.g., deJonge et al., 2021; Sylvester et al., 2016) and was chosen as a shorter, more feasible alternative to typical 8- to 10-week programs (Goncalves et al., 2023; Keeler et al., 2021; Yan et al., 2023). Given students’ time constraints and reduced resilience in the recovery era, brief, structured programs may be more practical (Fabiano & Pearson, 2025).
Inclusion Criteria
The following criteria were used to identify if mentors and participants were eligible to engage in the study (see Table 1).
Enrollment Criteria.
Sample Size
Following prior peer-mentorship program interventions (Sylvester et al., 2016; Yan et al., 2023), a 2-3:1 participant-to-mentor ratio was applied (Fried et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2020). The one-on-one format was selected in line with motivational interviewing principles, as personalized support enables participant-centered strategies, such as open-ended questioning and reflective listening, that may be more difficult to apply in larger groups (Miller & Rollnick, 2023). Low mentor enrollment (n = 6) was also considered supportive of the study's internal validity.
A power analysis was conducted using basic psychological need scores from an 8-week exercise peer-mentorship program for university students with and without depression (Keeler et al., 2021). G*Power indicated that 14 participants would provide a sufficient sample size. To offset attrition, nine additional participants were added (n = 24), as prior research involving undergraduate women has reported attrition rates of approximately 16% to 60% (Goncalves et al., 2023; Keeler et al., 2021).
Recruitment
Following ethical approval (#100315), purposive sampling was used to recruit mentors (November 2024 to January 2025) and participants (February to March 2025). A rolling recruitment approach was used to continuously onboard participants (see Figure 1). Recruitment strategies included social media advertisements on institutional accounts, campus posters, and in-class presentations. The Psychology Department's Sona System offered extra credit for research participation. Mentors received $18.00/hour while participants earned $20 or 2% credit for completing each data collection period. To determine eligibility, interested students completed a virtual survey via a QR code included in all advertisements. Once eligibility was confirmed, information on scheduling a baseline assessment was provided.
Consolidated standards of reporting trials flowchart.
Exercise Program
As seen in similar programs (Keeler et al., 2021; Kwak et al., 2023), participants were asked to exercise at least three times a week for 30 min at the campus gym, primarily using machines (e.g., treadmill and leg abductors), to accommodate limited experience and time constraints. Following national guidelines (CSEP, 2021), participants were encouraged to include cardiovascular and resistance training via a 5 minute warm-up, 20 minute workout, and 5 minute cool-down to promote engagement and reduce injury risk (deJonge et al., 2021; Keeler et al., 2021). This format also enabled participants to choose session timing, gym area, and activities, in an effort to support autonomy and more self-determined motivation while encouraging realistic, attainable goals aligned with health coaching principles (Deci & Ryan, 1980; Miller & Rollnick, 2023; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Study Conditions
Intervention participants were paired with a mentor and asked to attend one weekly in-person exercise session with that mentor for exercise-related modeling and knowledge sharing. Virtual conversations took place between sessions to provide support and explore engagement experiences (deJonge et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2020; Leenstra et al., 2019) using GroupMe: an online messaging platform selected for participant-mentor communication between exercise sessions. Control participants exercised independently without mentorship.
Mentor Training and Procedures
Mentors met privately with the first author for 20- to- 30 minutes to explore eligibility. The six eligible mentors then attended a 2 hour workshop at the host institution led by an associate professor trained in behavior change and lifestyle psychology and certified as a Professional Co-Active Coach (Co-Active Training Institute, 2025). Mirroring previous research, the workshop format combined slide-show presentations, group activities, and videos to introduce program procedures (15 minutes), motivational interviewing techniques (60 minutes), exercise structuring (15 minutes), and communication guidelines (20 minutes; Dineen & Condra, 2016; Fried et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2020; Leenstra et al., 2019). Mentor–participant interactions were designed to facilitate the three psychological needs using peer mentorship (Deci & Ryan, 1980; Miller & Rollnick, 2023; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Thus, the workshop content emphasized motivational interviewing strategies such as collaborative goal setting, open questions, affirmations, confidence language, and reflections (Miller & Rollnick, 2023). Other topics included injury prevention, accountability, and participant-centered guidance principles, along with GroupMe account set-up. Within 1-week of their final participants completing the study, mentors met with the first author for a 30- to- 45 minutes semi-structured interview to explore study experiences.
Responsibilities
Mentors were asked to provide one-on-one support through weekly exercise sessions with their assigned participants, assisting with equipment use, workout structuring, and comfort in the campus gym (deJonge et al., 2021; Leenstra et al., 2019). Mentors also used GroupMe to schedule sessions and offer interim guidance, as seen previously (Galliart et al., 2023). Specifically, they were asked to engage in at least two conversations per participant each week to discuss program experiences (deJonge et al., 2021; Fried et al., 2018; Yan et al., 2023). Motivational interviewing techniques were encouraged both in-person and virtually to strengthen participants’ autonomy, confidence, and sense of connectedness (Deci & Ryan, 2012; Miller & Rollnick, 2023).
Participant Procedures
Baseline Orientation
Preprogram, participants met individually with the first author for 60- to- 90 minutes to review guidelines, ask questions, and provide informed consent. Participants created an identification code and completed baseline data collection measures.
Participants then created Strava accounts, a virtual fitness tracking platform, friended the SHINE Program, and learned how to track engagement. The first author reviewed the three-page exercise guide created for the study, which included common terminology, hyperlinked exercises, and a sample workout plan (Sylvester et al., 2016). A one-on-one 15 minute campus gym tour was then provided, focused on gym etiquette, sign-in instructions, change room locations, and machine demonstrations to reduce injury risk associated with incorrect free-weight form (CSEP, 2021). These procedures aimed to foster competence and relatedness in a standardized manner across participants (Deci & Ryan, 1980). The campus gym consists of four sections: (A) a track, turf field, and a small machine area; (B) a studio with mirrors and open floor space; (C) a newly renovated, two-level gym with aerobic and strength-training options; and (D) an older free-weight and machine area located in the basement.
Intervention participants were assisted in creating GroupMe accounts and joined a group chat with their mentor, which was also monitored by the first author. Communication guidelines were discussed, which emphasized confidentiality and professionalism. Participants were required to contact their mentor within 2 days after the baseline orientation to discuss program goals and introductions.
Randomization
Block allocation (n = 6) randomized participants into the control or intervention group (Efird, 2011). Twelve pre-established combinations were randomly selected via a randomization website. The sequence was sealed in opaque envelopes, blinding the first author and participants until opened. Pre-orientation, all possible participant-mentor pairs were determined based on availability. For those assigned to the intervention condition, the randomization website was similarly used to assign dyads. Once participants were assigned to conditions, no one was blinded to group assignment.
Data Collection/Generation
Participants completed validated surveys via Qualtrics software at baseline, and immediately following weeks 3 and 6. A demographic questionnaire was administered at baseline (participants) and postprogram (mentors). The Psychological Needs Satisfaction in Exercise Scale (Wilson et al., 2006a), Behavioural Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire-3 (Markland & Tobin, 2004; Wilson et al., 2006b), and the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-Short Form (Antony et al., 1998; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995) were administered at all three-time points. Additional data collection included gym sign-in, exercise tracking, and communication tracking (intervention only). Post-program, participants completed an exit questionnaire, and mentors engaged in a semistructured interview.
Demographic Questionnaires
Participant items included age, birth country, program, year of study, ethnicity, height, weight, living status, employment status, and transportation method. Self-perceived fitness and exercise knowledge were also queried and rated on a scale of 1 to 10 (1 = below average, 5 = average, 10 = above average). Mentors were asked about their age, birth country, program, year of study, ethnicity, and self-perceived fitness and exercise knowledge using the same scale.
Psychological Needs Satisfaction in Exercise Scale
This 18-item scale measures perceived autonomy, competence, and relatedness in exercise based on self-determination theory (Wilson et al., 2006a). Participants reflected on the past week and responded to six statements for each need using a six-point scale (1 = false and 6 = true). Example items include autonomy, “I feel like I am the one who decides what exercises I do”; competence, “I feel confident that I can do even the most challenging exercises”; and relatedness, “I feel connected to the people who I interact with while we exercise together.” Subscale scores for each need are averaged. The scale was developed for undergraduate students and has demonstrated high-test retest reliability and Cronbach's alpha values (0.90–0.91; Markland & Tobin, 2004; Sabo et al., 2022; Wilson et al., 2006a).
Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire-3
This 24-item questionnaire measures exercise motivation regulations from self-determination theory using a five-point Likert scale (0 = not true for me, 2 = sometimes true for me, 4 = very true for me; Markland & Tobin, 2004; Wilson et al., 2006b). Participants reflect on the past week, and respond to statements aligned with amotivation, “I don’t see why I should have to exercise”; external regulation, “I exercise because other people say I should”; introjected regulation, “I feel guilty when I don’t exercise”; identified regulation, “I value the benefits of exercise”; integrated regulation, “I exercise because it is consistent with my life goals”; and intrinsic regulation “I exercise because it's fun.” In addition to examining changes over time for regulation style, the relative autonomy index will be used to evaluate motivation through a composite score calculated by using weighted subscale scores. This scale has been used in postsecondary contexts (Dafogianni et al., 2022), with research supporting its reliability (0.78–0.84), internal consistency (0.61–0.88), and Cronbach's alpha (0.73–0.86; Cid et al., 2018; Cocca et al., 2024; Markland & Tobin, 2004; Palombi et al., 2023; Wilson et al., 2006b).
Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-Short Form
This 21-item scale assesses psychological distress by measuring symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress (Antony et al., 1998; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). Participants reflect on the past week and respond using a four-point Likert scale (0 = never, 1 = sometimes, 2 = often, 3 = almost always). Seven items correspond to each category, including depression, “I found it difficult to work up the initiative to do things”; anxiety, “I was worried about situations in which I might panic and make a fool of myself”; and stress, “I found it difficult to relax.” Scores are summed and classified by severity (normal 0-16, mild 17-20, moderate 21-25, severe 26-29, and extremely severe 30+). This scale has been used in postsecondary contexts (Kia-Keating et al., 2018), with research supporting its internal reliability (0.82-0.90), Cronbach's alpha (0.86-0.93), and test-retest reliability (0.71–0.81; Antony et al., 1998; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995).
Exercise Tracking
All participants tracked engagement via Strava, which automatically recorded the date, time of day, and duration of each workout. Participants were asked to manually enter the location (e.g., Gym A, B, C, and D), duration, and type of each activity (e.g., warm-up, workout, and cool down).
Facility Attendance
Before each session, participants signed in by scanning their student card at the gym's front desk. The software-supported tracking system will allow researchers to verify attendance and exercise frequency, ensuring data accuracy.
Exit Questionnaire
Upon study completion, participants completed a series of open-ended questions to explore their experiences, motivation, and exercise habits. Adopted from previous research (deJonge et al., 2021; Fried et al., 2018), this included questions such as “In what ways did having control over your exercise engagement choices impact your overall engagement?”
Communication Tracking
Mentors and intervention participants communicated via GroupMe, to aid session planning and provide social support in line with prior studies (Galliart et al., 2023).
Mentor Interview
Postprogram, mentors completed a 30- to- 45 minute one-on-one semi-structured interview to gain in-depth insights into their program experiences. Interviews were guided by questions adapted from previous research, such as “How did your experiences with participants compare to one another?” (Fried et al., 2018; Leenstra et al., 2019).
Data Analysis
Quantitative data will be analyzed using SPSS. Demographics, exercise logbooks, facility attendance, and communication frequency will be analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Psychological Needs Satisfaction in Exercise Scale, Behavioural Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire-3, and the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-Short Form will be examined separately using two-way mixed factorial analysis of variances (ANOVAs; p < .05) to identify within- and between-group differences, followed by post hoc tests. A last observation carried forward method will be used to address missing psychological data for those who complete at least half of the program (Lachin, 2017).
Qualitative data will be analyzed through an inductive and deductive content analysis of postprogram interviews, exit questionnaires, and mentor-mentee conversations. This approach will allow for the discovery of emergent themes, while supporting placement in line with constructs of self-determination theory (Bingham, 2023; Kowalski et al., 2018). Several steps will be taken to enhance the trustworthiness of the data. For example, to enhance credibility and minimize bias, three research members will independently review, code, and categorize themes (Bingham, 2023). Upon agreement, common themes noted by 50% or more participants in each condition will qualify for inclusion (Koralesky et al., 2025), ensuring themes reflect participant experiences. Trustworthiness will be further supported through strategies such as maintaining a record of interactions and decisions (audit trail); diarizing researcher reflections on how assumptions and perspectives may influence the research process (Bingham, 2023); and peer debriefing among team members to foster critical reflection of the study findings (Kowalski et al., 2018).
Preliminary Findings
Mentors
Eight potential mentors completed the screening survey, and seven completed pre-program interviews. Two were excluded for not meeting the inclusion criteria. Six mentors subsequently completed the workshop and were paired with two to three participants each. Table 2 provides mentor demographics.
Mentor Demographic Data (n = 6).
Participants
Eighty potential participants completed the screening survey. Forty-seven did not meet the inclusion criteria, one declined to participate, and seven did not attend their scheduled orientation session (see Figure 1). In total, 33 undergraduate women completed the baseline assessment, 15 of whom were randomly assigned mentors. Tables 3 and 4 provide participant demographics.
Participant Demographic Data (Descriptives).
Note. The body mass index was classified using the American Heart Association (n.d.) metrics.
Participant Demographic Data (Frequency).
Discussion
This protocol paper describes the SHINE Program, a 6-week peer-mentorship exercise intervention grounded in self-determination theory and informed by motivational interviewing principles to support undergraduate women's exercise engagement.
Preliminary data indicated strong interest among physically inactive university students in a socially supportive campus-based exercise program. During a 7-week recruitment period, nearly 100 students expressed interest, demonstrating a demand for a behavior change intervention integrating peer mentorship and accessible exercise support. Although eligibility criteria excluded many applicants due to graduate or part-time enrollment status, this interest underscores the program's relevance across a diverse student population. These baseline demographic data also provide procedural insight by identifying student groups who may be interested in future programming, suggesting that adapted versions of SHINE could be explored for graduate or part-time populations.
These early participant demographic findings have important implications for coaching and mentoring practice. Interest in the program suggests that sedentary students may be receptive to interventions combining structured guidance, accountability, and social support. Specifically, mentor-led exercise sessions, virtual check-ins, and guided facility orientation may be valuable practical components for inclusion to address psychological needs. Future coaching-informed interventions should prioritize accessible, inclusive, and supportive environments to promote exercise participation among undergraduate women and other student populations who experience barriers to traditional gym engagement (e.g., Fabiano & Pearson, 2025; Othman et al., 2022).
Regarding sample characteristics, mentors represented a relatively homogenous group, which may support consistency in mentor training and reduce variability in coaching styles across dyads. In contrast, participant diversity highlights the importance of flexible, participant-centered approaches that can be adapted to different backgrounds, experiences, and comfort levels. Together, these sample characteristics support the study's emphasis on standardized mentor training paired with individualized, autonomy-supportive guidance.
Based on prior research, improvements in physical and mental health are expected, particularly among those receiving mentorship (Keeler et al., 2021). The SHINE program introduces several novel features to the exercise promotion literature as a gender-specific peer-mentorship program targeting undergraduate women in the pandemic recovery era. Guided by self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1980) and informed by a targeted needs assessment (Fabiano & Pearson, 2025), the study addresses documented barriers to undergraduate women's exercise engagement, including confidence, knowledge, and comfort in the gym setting. The peer-mentorship program framework (Peirson, 1993) is intended to promote relationship-building, encouragement, and skill development, while structured motivational interviewing training aligns mentorship with the self-determination theory through a focus on supporting the psychological needs (Deci & Ryan, 1980; Miller & Rollnick, 2023).
To enhance accessibility and ecological validity (Brown et al., 2024; Dooris et al., 2020), the SHINE Program was situated in the university's fitness facility. Tours were incorporated to address discomfort and intimidation, which are commonly reported by undergraduate women in gym settings (e.g., Fabiano & Pearson, 2025; Othman et al., 2022). This feature contributes to the limited literature on facility tours as a strategy for promoting exercise engagement. Hybrid mentorship components reflect current student communication preferences and may support accountability, relatedness, and ongoing engagement outside scheduled exercise sessions (Fried et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2020). These design choices demonstrate how self-determination theory and motivational interviewing were operationalized within the intervention, responding to calls for stronger theoretical grounding in peer-mentorship and coaching-informed exercise programs (e.g., deJonge et al., 2021).
At a time when students face rising stress and sedentary behavior (Legey et al., 2017; March-Amengual et al., 2022), campus-based peer-mentorship programs offer a promising method to evoke behavior change. By prioritizing social support, accessibility, and participant-centered guidance, SHINE reflects a potentially sustainable model that could be integrated into existing campus recreation or student wellness services (Leenstra et al., 2019). These findings may interest campus recreation leaders, health promotion practitioners, and policymakers committed to supportive student environments.
Conclusion
The SHINE Program protocol outlines a theory-informed randomized controlled trial designed to support exercise engagement among inactive undergraduate women in the pandemic-recovery era. By combining peer mentorship, motivational interviewing-informed communication, facility orientation, and virtual support, it is hoped that the program will address barriers related to confidence, social support, and exercise knowledge. Findings will help determine whether this scalable campus-based approach can improve motivation, psychological wellbeing, and exercise behavior.
Footnotes
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Masters Graduate Scholarship (#195012) and St. Josephs Care Group's Applied Health Research Award.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.