Men’s health literacy: a review and recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although men's health promotion efforts have attracted programmatic and evaluative research, conspicuously absent are gendered insights to men's health literacy. The current scoping review article shares the findings drawn from 12 published articles addressing men's health literacy in a range of health and illness contexts. Evident was consensus that approaches tailored to men's everyday language and delivered in familiar community-based spaces were central to advancing men's health literacy, and, by extension, the effectiveness of men's health promotion programs. However, most men's health literacy studies focussed on medical knowledge of disease contexts including prostate and colon cancers, while diversity was evident regards conceptual frameworks and/or methods and measures for evaluating men's health literacy. Despite evidence that low levels of health literacy fuel stigma and men's reticence for health help-seeking, and that tailoring programs to health literacy levels is requisite to effective men's health promotion efforts, the field of men's health literacy remains underdeveloped. Based on the scoping review findings, recommendations for future research include integrating men's health literacy research as a needs analysis to more effectively design and evaluate targeted men's health promotion programs.
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 | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".