Gender Differences in Osteoporosis Health Beliefs and Knowledge and Their Relation to Vigorous Physical Activity in University Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this cross-sectional investigation was to examine (1) gender differences in osteoporosis-related knowledge and beliefs and (2) if these beliefs could predict vigorous physical activity behavior in university students. PARTICIPANTS: Male (n = 176) and female (n = 351) university students participated in the study. METHODS: Participants completed self-report measures of osteoporosis knowledge and health beliefs and vigorous physical activity. RESULTS: Regardless of gender, osteoporosis knowledge was relatively poor. Women reported higher knowledge, perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, and calcium barriers, and lower exercise self-efficacy than men. Regression analyses showed that for women, perceived susceptibility, health motivation, and exercise self-efficacy predicted vigorous physical activity, whereas for men, exercise barriers was the only predictor. CONCLUSIONS: Gender differences in osteoporosis health beliefs appear to be greater in older adults than college-aged students. Interventions designed to increase vigorous physical activity may want to target different beliefs for men and women.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".