Health Literacy Among Canadian Men Experiencing Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective was to describe the health literacy of a sample of Canadian men with prostate cancer and explore whether sociodemographic and health factors were related to men’s health literacy scores. A sample of 213 Canadian men ( M age = 68.71 years, SD = 7.44) diagnosed with prostate cancer were recruited from an online prostate cancer support website. The men completed the Health Literacy Questionnaire along with demographic, comorbidity, and prostate cancer treatment–related questions online. Of the 5-point scales, men’s health literacy scores were highest for “Understanding health information enough to know what to do” ( M = 4.04, SD = 0.48) and lowest for “Navigating the health care system” ( M = 3.80, SD = 0.58). Of the 4-point scales, men’s scores were highest for “Feeling understood and supported by health care professionals” ( M = 3.20, SD = 0.52) and lowest for “Having sufficient information to manage my health” ( M = 2.97, SD = 0.46). Regression analyses indicated that level of education was positively associated with health literacy scores, and men without comorbidities had higher health literacy scores. Age and years since diagnosis were unrelated to health literacy. Support in health system navigation and self-management of health may be important targets for intervention.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".