Exploring the Association Between Health Literacy and Psychological Well-Being Among Industry Managers in Germany
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Industry managers are typically exposed to high work demands but have received limited attention by research, particularly concerning the issue of health literacy and how this relates to their psychological well-being. The aim of this study was to explore the association between health literacy and psychological well-being among managers in Germany. METHODS: An online survey of a sample of 126 commercial industry managers was conducted. Effects of health literacy on psychological well-being (WHO-5 index) were investigated using path analysis. RESULTS: The findings show a quarter of managers were classified as having poor well-being. Health literacy, namely the facets self-regulation (β = 0.40, P < 0.001), self-perception (β = 0.26, P < 0.001), self-control (β = 0.25, P < 0.01), and proactive approach to health (β = 0.09, P < 0.05), were positively associated with psychological well-being. CONCLUSION: The study indicates that higher health literacy is associated with decreased risk of poor well-being.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".