Meaning-Centered Men’s Groups: Initial Findings of an Intervention to Enhance Resiliency and Reduce Suicide Risk in Men Facing Retirement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To assess the preliminary effectiveness of Meaning-Centered Men’s Groups (MCMG), a 12-session existentially-oriented, community-based, psychological group intervention designed to enhance psychological resiliency and prevent the onset or exacerbation of suicide ideation among men who are concerned about or struggling with the transition to retirement.Methods: We recruited 30 men (n= 10 per group), 55 years and older (M= 63.7, SD= 4.1) from community settings to participate in a course of MCMG to be delivered in a community center. Participants completed eligibility, pre-, mid-, and post-group assessments of suicide ideation and psychological risk and resiliency factors.Results: Participants experienced significant increases in attitudinal sources of meaning in life, psychological well-being, life satisfaction, retirement satisfaction, and general health, and decreases in depression, hopelessness, loneliness, and suicide ideation.Conclusions: Preliminary findings suggest that MCMG is a novel men’s mental health intervention that may help to enhance psychological well-being and potentially reduce the severity or prevent the onset of symptoms of depression, hopelessness, and suicide ideation.Clinical Implications: Upstream psychological interventions may serve an important role in mental health promotion and suicide prevention with potentially vulnerable individuals facing challenging life transitions.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".