Barriers to Physical Activity Among Gay Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gay men may not be physically active at recommended levels to achieve health benefits. Thus, a need exists to identify general (i.e., common across populations) and population-specific barriers that hinder or stop gay men from participating in physical activity (PA). Salient barriers may be identified through the extent each barrier limits PA (i.e., barrier limitation) and the level of one's confidence to overcome barriers and engage in PA (i.e., self-regulatory efficacy). The purposes of this study were to (1) provide a description of general and population-specific barriers to PA among sufficiently and insufficiently active gay men, (2) identify barrier limitation and self-regulatory efficacy for the reported barriers, and (3) examine the associations between meeting the current PA recommendation, barrier limitation, and self-regulatory efficacy. Participants were 108 self-identified gay males aged 21 to 64 years who completed a web-based survey. A total of 35 general barriers and no population-specific barriers were identified by the sufficiently and insufficiently active groups. The sufficiently active group reported higher self-regulatory efficacy and lower barrier limitation for nearly all reported barriers. A binary logistic regression used to examine the associations between PA, barrier limitation, and self-regulatory efficacy was statistically significant, χ(2)(2, N = 108) = 19.26, p < .0001, R(2) = .16. Only barrier limitation significantly contributed to the model. Future research should continue to examine barriers to PA among gay men to determine whether an intervention needs to be designed specifically for gay men or whether a one-size-fits-all intervention would be effective in helping all men overcome common barriers to engaging in PA.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".