Pilot Testing the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability in a Process Evaluation of a Community Pharmacy–Based Men’s Mental Health Promotion Program
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to assess men’s acceptability of a men’s mental health promotion program in community pharmacies through pilot testing the theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA) as part of the process evaluation. Five men were interviewed about their experiences with the Headstrong program to learn about the acceptability of the program. The TFA was used as the deductive coding scheme and consists of seven constructs including affective attitude, burden, intervention coherence, ethicality, opportunity costs, perceived effectiveness, and self-efficacy. Three constructs, affective attitude, perceived effectiveness, and intervention coherence, from the TFA were coded in all five transcripts. The most frequently coded constructs were affective attitude and perceived effectiveness, coded 19 and 17 times, respectively. Interviewees all reported good relationships with their pharmacists, which influenced their willingness, attitude, and low burden for participation in Headstrong. Each of the men expressed comments reflecting anticipated effectiveness of the program outside of their own experience and how it could impact other men. Use of the TFA as part of a process evaluation of men’s experiences in a men’s mental health program was useful in identifying men’s perceptions of the program’s acceptability. Further research regarding how the quality of existing relationships with clinicians and patients impacts the TFA constructs of affective attitudes, perceived effectiveness, and burden would be useful.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it