MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2339476453 · doi:10.1177/1557988315587549

Engaging Men in Chronic Disease Prevention and Management Programs

2015· article· en· W2339476453 on OpenAlexafffund
Adam Gavarkovs, Shauna M. Burke, Robert J. Petrella

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Men s Health · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Roles and Identity Studies
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)Psychological interventionDiseaseChronic diseaseMedicineGerontologyPhysical activityAffect (linguistics)Disease preventionIntervention (counseling)PsychologyFamily medicinePhysical therapyEnvironmental healthNursingSocial psychologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic disease has become one of the largest health burdens facing the developed world. Men are at a higher risk of being diagnosed with chronic disease than women. Although lifestyle interventions have been shown to reduce the risk of chronic disease in participants, men are often underrepresented in such programs. The purpose of this study was to explore the individual-level and program-specific factors that affect male participation rates in chronic disease prevention and management (CDPM) programs. A scoping review methodology was selected, and 25 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the review. Results showed that traditional group-based programs that focused on topics such as nutrition and physical activity were often seen by men as inherently feminine, which served as a barrier for participation. Program-specific factors that attracted men to participate in interventions included a group component with like-minded men, the use of humor in the delivery of health information, the inclusion of both nutrition and physical activity components, and the presence of some manner of competition. A past negative health event, personal concern for health status, and motivation to improve physical appearance were cited by men as facilitators to CDPM program participation. Gaps in the research are identified, and results of this study can be used to inform the development of CDPM programs that will improve the engagement and participation of men.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score0.562

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations54
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Men s HealthSame topicGender Roles and Identity StudiesFrench-language works237,207