Seeking healthcare services in hockey : understanding health behaviours in a masculine sport subculture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite receiving more power, privilege, and opportunity than women in most societal contexts, men experience a lower life expectancy, higher rates of life-threatening disease, and a higher rate of successful suicide. We laud sports as an opportunity to improve health through exercise and social connection, yet we fail to consider the consequences sport cultures may have on men’s health behaviours, specifically their relations with seeking healthcare services. Literature suggests that the same traits and characteristics associated with gender-based violence, misogyny, and homophobia – collectively associated with the umbrella term “toxic masculinity”- are also responsible for men’s negative health behaviours. This study focuses on the influence these characteristics have on health behaviours in a masculine sport context. Informed by hegemonic theory (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005) and hybrid masculinities (Bridges & Pascoe, 2014) and underpinned by a constructionist paradigm, 11 semi-structured interviews were conducted with male hockey players (age 17-20) in the Western Hockey League and British Columbia Hockey League to understand how hockey culture shapes men’s health behaviours and their use of healthcare services for both preventative and reactive reasons. While notions of an “old-school attitude” still exist in Canadian hockey culture, this research identified a shift toward health-promoting ideals in the hockey community, offering hope for continuous improvement in player health and safety. Using a reflexive thematic analysis, four main themes were developed: (1) on-going cultural shift, (2) health – not healthcare; (3) performance as the priority; and (4) influence of the hierarchy. These findings provide context to the social environment of junior hockey in Western Canada and provide insight into the health behaviours of athletes from a sport culture which has been the focus of much scrutiny and criticism. These findings also have the potential to inform policy development and effective intervention or education programs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".