The Association Between Men’s Heath Behaviors and Interest in Workplace Health Promotion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Predictors of men’s health behaviors and interest in workplace health promotion are not well known. The aim of this study was to describe men’s interest in workplace health promotion and associated health behaviors. Method: Male employees ( N = 781) at six workplaces in British Columbia, Canada, were invited to complete a survey of their health behaviors, demographics, and interest in health promotion prior to implementation of a workplace health program. Findings: A total of 227 male employees ( M age = 43.6 years; SD = 12.1) completed the survey (response rate = 29%). Regarding health behaviors, 62.1% reported 150 weekly minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), 29.3% consumed 5+ servings of fruit/vegetables per day, 56.8% reported 7+ hours sleep/night, 14.4% smoked, and 81.3% consumed alcohol. Men spent 50% of their workday sitting, and higher body mass index (BMI), higher income, and greater hours worked were related to greater hours sitting. Age was inversely related to MVPA. Alcohol consumption was lower among men who were older, had higher income, and worked fewer hours. Most men were interested in being physically active (85%), managing stress (85%), eating healthy (89%), and cancer screening (91%). Higher stage of change for physical activity (β = .20, p = .003) and fruit/vegetable consumption (β = .18, p = .027) were related to interest in these activities. Conclusions/Application to Practice: Occupational health providers should consider worker demographics and could support interventions that target individuals with varying levels of health behaviors given the importance of meeting the needs of often sedentary workers.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".