The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Gender and Health: An Update on Hypotheses and Evidence
Abstract
This is a state of the issue paper about gender and physical health. It organizes the hypotheses proposed for male-female differences in physical health status, therapeutic health behaviors, and longevity and it summarizes empirical research, especially sociological research, on the topic over the past 10-15 years. Capsule summaries of sex differentials in health and of recent trends in health and morality are also presented for American (U.S.) men and women. The central theoretical viewpoint of this paper is that sex differences in health are principally the outcome of differential risks acquiredfrom roles, stress, life styles, and preventive health practices. Psychosocial factors-how men and women perceive and evaluate symptoms, and their readiness and ability to take therapeutic actions-are important as well, but typically secondary to acquired risks. Other factors such as prior health care, biological risks, health reporting, and caretaker effects (for example, physician sex bias) have even smaller importance. We hypothesize that the relative weight of acquired risks and psychosocialfactors varies for different types of health problems as follows: (1) Psychosocial factors have their greatest weight in responses to chronic, nonfatal, or low severity diseases and injuries and (2) gender differences are also greatest in responses to these; that is, men and women differ more in their perception, evaluation, and treatment of prolonged, mild conditions than of acute, life-threatening, or severe ones. The paper suggests some strategies for social science research on male-female health differences in the next decade or two.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
BERKMAN, L. F., & SYME, S. L. (1979) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a112674 · Cited by 5,341
Illness and the feminine role: a theoretical review
Nathanson, C. A. (1975) · Social Science & Medicine (1967) · doi:10.1016/0037-7856(75)90094-3 · Cited by 509
FRIES, J. F. (2005) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00401.x · Cited by 449
Cited by
Constructions of masculinity and their influence on men's well-being: a theory of gender and health
Courtenay, W. H. (2000) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00390-1 · Cited by 4,091
Gender variations in clinical pain experience
Unruh, A. M. (1996) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(95)00214-6 · Cited by 1,550
Sex Differences in Insomnia: A Meta-Analysis
Zhang, B., & Wing, Y.-K. (2006) · Sleep · doi:10.1093/sleep/29.1.85 · Cited by 1,286
Gender Differences in Caregiver Stressors, Social Resources, and Health: An Updated Meta-Analysis
Pinquart, M., & Sorensen, S. (2006) · The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences · doi:10.1093/geronb/61.1.p33 · Cited by 1,213
Aspinwall, L. G., & Taylor, S. E. (1992) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.6.989 · Cited by 1,060
Metadata
- Authors
- Verbrugge, L. M.
- Venue
- Journal of Health and Social Behavior
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1985-09
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 156
- ISSN
- 0022-1465 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1972912763
- Cited by
- 1,245
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 25.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.