Men’s Perspectives of a Gender-Sensitized Health Promotion Program Targeting Healthy Eating, Active Living, and Social Connectedness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Men in high income countries have poorer dietary habits and higher rates of overweight and obesity than women. A major challenge with engaging men in health promotion is the perception that attention to one’s health runs counter to masculine identities. Contemporary health promotion programs are believed to hold little “manly” appeal and often fail to engage and retain men. The HAT TRICK program was designed to engage men with their health by delivering an intervention in collaboration with a semi-professional ice hockey team. The program included 12 weekly sessions promoting healthy eating, active living, and social connectedness among men. Gender-sensitized elements were reflected in the program design, setting, content, and delivery. Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with 23 men to explore perspectives of their participation in the gender-sensitized intervention. Participants were white (100%) with a mean age of 53 years ( SD ± 9.9), Body Mass Index (BMI) of 37 kg/m 2 ( SD ± 6.8), and waist circumference of 127 centimeters ( SD ± 14.5). Inductive thematic analysis revealed three overarching themes, including: (a) Harnessing nostalgia for past masculinities: “Closet athletes from 30 years ago,” (2) Offsetting resistance to change with sensible health advice: “Don’t give up drinking beer, just have less,” and (3) Gendered social spaces for doing health: “A night out with the guys,” The findings support the value of gender-sensitized approaches to men’s health promotion. Further research is needed to identify which gender-sensitized elements are critical to engaging men in healthy lifestyle changes.
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 | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".