Mental illness prevention in post-ACS men: A partcipatory action research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The prevalence of social determinants of health (i.e. rurality, low education and poverty) among men put them at an elevated risk for comorbid cardiac disease and mental illness. While, men are particularly vulnerable to mental illnesses (i.e. depression, anxiety) after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS), they are typically averse to seeking medical care, especially for mental health issues. Targeting interventions to at-risk population groups is a well documented approach. However, little in the literature presents how to prevent mental illness in cardiac men. This study aims to develop, implement and pilot a psychoeducational program tailored for post-ACS men. Methods A mixed method including a scoping review, a qualitative study and a quasi-experimental pilot study. Results In total, 42 articles were retrieved to extract key components of cardiac men-sensitive psychoeducation programs. We led 22 focus groups and 14 semi-structured interviews (119 men in total). The mean age was 51.2 years [45-77]. We integrated the gathered data gathered from the scoping review and the qualitative study to develop a psychoeducational program (3 group sessions). The pilot study involved 48 men who completed the baseline, the 3-month and the 6-month data collections. We observed 80% of compliance. Findings show a significant improvement in PHQ-9, GAD-7, IES-R, CSI and EQ-5D scales. We also observed changes in the CMNI-22, a measure of attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors associated with both traditional and non-traditional masculine gender roles. Men appreciated the time flexibility (sessions were scheduled based on participants’ availability) and the responsiveness of the sessions (content was discussed based on their needs and interests). Life partners were invited and 65% attended to all sessions. Conclusions The program was a success and we expect to transform it into a peer-led intervention to improve its delivery in the community and its accessibility for rural and remote areas. Key messages At-risk population-sensitive approaches are key for compliance and effectiveness. Group sessions are effective approaches to improve men’s mental heatlh literacy.
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 | 0.026 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".