Redefining strength: The role of a noncontact boxing intervention in improving social connectedness, mental health and wellbeing for disengaged young men (16–25 years)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Engaging young men in mental health interventions remains challenging due to traditional gender norms and social disengagement. Brothers Through Boxing (BTB) is a 24-week program that integrates noncontact boxing with mental health education. This study assesses its appropriateness, effectiveness, and impact on well-being, life satisfaction, social connectedness, and constructions of masculinity. Methods: A mixed-methods approach was employed. Between November 2020 and March 2022, pre-, post-, and 3-month follow-up surveys were administered to 29 participants. Validated tools included: the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS), Life Satisfaction Scale (LSS), and Duke Social Support Index (DSSI), to assess mental well-being, life satisfaction, and social connectedness, respectively. Qualitative data were collected between November and December 2021 through two focus groups ( n = 4; 43 min and n = 5; 54 min) and one interview ( n = 1; 17 min). Results: There was a significant increase in SWEMWBS (post, p < .001; 3 m follow-up, p < .001), LSS (post, p < .001; 3M follow-up, p < .001) and DSSI (post, p < .001; 3 m follow-up, p < .001) scores. High program satisfaction was reported (mean = 3.76; SD = 0.43; range: 1–4, where 4 = very satisfied). Boxing was the primary engagement driver, with peer-led discussions and the Road to Resurgence toolkit crucial for program success and shifting masculine norms. Conclusion: BTB demonstrates promising potential to improve and maintain mental well-being, life satisfaction, and social connectedness in disengaged young men, a group traditionally difficult to engage through conventional therapeutic approaches.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".