What men want: A qualitative investigation of men's health concerns and relevant health and physical activity message content for men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite having an increased risk of morbidity and mortality, men engage in fewer health-promoting behaviors than women. Informational health resources and health-promotion interventions for men are lacking. To address this gap, we conducted a qualitative investigation using the Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM; Witte, 1992) as a guiding framework. The purpose of this study was to examine the relevance and applicability of EPPM constructs for health messages. However, physical activity emerged as a prominent theme. Consequently, this study also provides insight into the applicability of the EPPM for developing physical activity messages for men. Four semi-structured focus groups and four semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted. Participants discussed the relevance of EPPM constructs to health messages and provided feedback about health advertisements and messages. Participants included 26 men (M age = 37 ± 7.3 years) who were generally active (80.77%). Participants easily related to the EPPM constructs of susceptibility, severity, response efficacy and self-efficacy to health messaging. In discussing these constructs, perceptions of control emerged as a theme and physical activity was identified as a controllable and desirable behavior. Participants indicated that self-efficacy could be enhanced by adopting self-regulatory strategies (e.g. planning) to engage in health behaviors such as physical activity. When evaluating health magazines and health messages based upon the tenets of the EPPM, participants preferred messages that included demographically-tailored facts and statistics, reputable sources, strong language and sex appeal. From these findings, we have formulated preliminary recommendations regarding theory-based content for health and physical activity messages for men. Acknowledgments: Hastings and Prince Edward Counties Health Unit
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 | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".