MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049723579 · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-s2-p126

Development and pilot testing of a National Men’s Health Index

2014· article· en· W2049723579 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chin Hai Teo, Chirk Jenn Ng

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Health Services Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Roles and Identity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth administrationNursing researchMedicineHealth informaticsPublic healthIndex (typography)Health services researchFamily medicineEnvironmental healthNursingWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent men’s health reports from Asia, Australia, Canada and Europe have consistently shown that men have higher morbidity and mortality compared to women in most health conditions. There are numerous factors that may contribute to this and they range from men’s behaviour, socio-economic to health system factor. To date, there is no systematic way to document and compare men’s health determining factors and their impacts on men’s health. Policy makers do not have proper guidelines to accurately identify and prioritize on the key factors that affect men’s health status in individual country. To overcome this problem, we propose the concept of the National Men’s Health Index (NMHI), which aims to assess men’s health status and its social health determinants of a country. Men’s health status consists of several categories including survivability, physical and mental health, which is divided further into indicators such as life expectancy, communicable, non-communicable diseases, injuries and suicide rate. The overall NMHI score indicates the wellbeing of men in the country while the sub-score will provide an indication of physical and mental wellbeing. The social health determinants are factors that influence the NMHI score and they are made up of lifestyle risk factors, socio-economy status, safety, environmental and health system, which are measured by parameters such as literacy rate, smoking prevalence, pollution index and health expenditure. The NMHI will be developed systematically in 4 steps. Firstly, two systematic reviews will be carried out to review the existing composite health and non-health indices as well as to identify established indicators of men’s health. Secondly, NMHI model will be developed based on the systematic reviews and the expert opinions. Thirdly, a Delphi survey will be conducted with men’s health key opinion leaders in the world to prioritize the men’s health indicators. Fourthly, the NMHI model will be revised and weighted accordingly before pilot testing. The NMHI scores of each country will be ranked and this will be correlated with the various social health determinants to explain the score. We believe that NMHI can serve as a guide for policy makers to identify gaps in men’s health and help them to prioritize health policy for men in their country. The NMHI will also allow countries to share experiences and effective strategies with one another and to monitor men’s health progress.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.073
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.062
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0730.062
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.225
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Health Services ResearchSame topicGender Roles and Identity StudiesFrench-language works237,207