Understanding body image disturbance in the promotion of mental health: a discourse analytic study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Health care interventions in the area of body image disturbance and eating disorders largely involve individual treatment approaches, while prevention and health promotion are relatively underexplored. A review of health promotion activities in the area of body image in Australia revealed three programmes, the most extensive and longest standing having been established in 1992. The aims of this programme are to reduce body image dissatisfaction and inappropriate eating behaviour, especially among women. Because health promotion is concerned with the social aspects of health, it was hypothesized by the authors that a social understanding of body image and eating disorders might be advanced in a health promotion setting and reflected in the approach to practice. In order to examine approaches to body image in health promotion, 10 health professionals responsible for the design and management of this programme participated in a series of semi‐structured interviews between 1997 and 2000. Three discursive themes were evident in health workers' explanations of body image problems: (1) cognitive‐behavioural themes; (2) gender themes; and (3) socio‐cultural themes. While body image problems were constructed as psychological problems that are particularly experienced by women, their origins were largely conceived to be socio‐cultural. The implications of these constructions are critically discussed in terms of the approach to health promotion used in this programme. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.020 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".