Promoting men's health through sports clubs: a rapid realist review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Traditional health promotion interventions have failed to engage men. Sports clubs offer male-friendly health promotion settings for men, but little is known about implementable intervention strategies and subsequent effects. This rapid realist review (RRR) aims to identify context, mechanisms and effects of health promotion interventions targeting men by or in collaboration with sports clubs. Methods The RRR methodology was developed in collaboration with a panel of Danish practice and policy representatives and international academics. A systematic literature search was conducted in February 2023 for studies published after 2013 in MEDLINE, Embase, and SportDiscus databases and through grey literature sources. Included studies: 1) targeted men aged 18+ years, 2) reported health promotion outcomes, and 3) were delivered primarily by or in collaboration with sports clubs. Results Fifty-two studies were included. Preliminary analyses indicate that interventions delivered through sports clubs show promise for engaging men with high cardiometabolic risk and producing favorable health outcomes. Preliminary findings from the realist synthesis show that if men felt a strong attachment to the sports club (context), it resonated with their feelings of social identity which outweighed a former reluctance to attend health programs (mechanism), and thus increased the men's likelihood for program engagement and health behavior change (outcome). Conclusions Our study indicates that men's health promotion through sports clubs is emergent. While great strides have been made to increase men's involvement in health promoting activities by delivering interventions through sports clubs, research has predominantly focused on select behaviours (e.g., physical activity), sub-groups (e.g., sports fans) and predominantly Caucasian, overweight, middle-aged men.
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 | 0.041 | 0.135 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".