Peer Positive Social Control and Men’s Health-Promoting Behaviors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Men are generally thought to be less inclined to take care of their health. To date, most studies about men's health have focused on deficits in self-care and difficulties in dealing with this sphere of their life. The present study reframes this perspective, using a salutogenic strengths-based approach and seeking to identify variables that influence men to take care of their health, rather than neglect it. This study focuses on the association between peer positive social control and men's health behaviors, while controlling for other important individual and social determinants (sociodemographic characteristics, health self-efficacy, home neighborhood, spousal positive social control, and the restrictive emotionality norm). In a mixed-method study, 669 men answered a self-reported questionnaire, and interviews were conducted with a maximum variation sample of 31 men. Quantitative results indicated that, even after controlling for sociodemographic variables and other important factors, peer positive social control was significantly associated with the six health behaviors measured in the study (health responsibility, nutrition, physical activity, interpersonal relations, stress management, and spirituality). Interview results revealed that peer positive social control influenced men's health behaviors through three different mechanisms: shared activity, being inspired, and serving as a positive role model for others. In summary, friends and coworkers could play a significant role in promoting various health behaviors among adult men in their daily life. Encouraging men to socialize and discuss health, and capitalizing on healthy men as role models appear to be effective ways to influence health behavior adoption among this specific population.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".