An Updated Review of Interventions that Include Promotion of Physical Activity for Adult Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The marked disparity in life expectancy between men and women suggests men are a vulnerable group requiring targeted health promotion programs. As such, there is an increasing need for health promotion strategies that effectively engage men with their health and/or illness management. Programs that promote physical activity could significantly improve the health of men. Although George et al. (Sports Med 42(3):281, 30) reviewed physical activity programs involving adult males published between 1990 and 2010, developments in men's health have prompted the emergence of new sex- and gender-specific approaches targeting men. The purpose of this review was to: (1) extend and update the review undertaken by George et al. (Sports Med 42(3):281, 30) concerning the effectiveness of physical activity programs in males, and (2) evaluate the integration of gender-specific influences in the content, design, and delivery of men's health promotion programs. A search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, and the SPORTDiscus databases for articles published between January 2010 and August 2014 was conducted. In total, 35 studies, involving evaluations of 31 programs, were identified. Findings revealed that a variety of techniques and modes of delivery could effectively promote physical activity among men. Though the majority of programs were offered exclusively to men, 12 programs explicitly integrated gender-related influences in male-specific programs in ways that recognized men's interests and preferences. Innovations in male-only programs that focus on masculine ideals and gender influences to engage men in increasing their physical activity hold potential for informing strategies to promote other areas of men's health.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".