Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31218265›Full record

ArticleHuman reproduction open2019

You did not turn up… I did not realise I was invited…: understanding male attitudes towards engagement in fertility and reproductive health discussions.

B Grace, J Shawe, S Johnson, J Stephenson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human reproduction open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Iranian men's Perception toward Preconception Care: A Qualitative Content Analysis.International journal of community based nursing and midwifery · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Preconditions to parenthood: changes over time and generations.Reproductive biomedicine & society online · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

B GraceResearch Department of Reproductive Health, UCL Institute for Women's Health, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5943-1700
J ShaweThe Institute of Health and Community, Faculty of Health & Human Sciences, the University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.
S JohnsonSPD Development Company Limited, Bedford, UK.
J StephensonResearch Department of Reproductive Health, UCL Institute for Women's Health, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8852-0881

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionWhat are the underlying reasons for low male engagement in fertility and reproductive health discussions and decision-making? SUMMARY ANSWER: The perception of women's primacy in fertility and reproductive health limits the extent to which men believe their engagement is important. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Active participation of men in the process of informed decision-making regarding childbearing is beneficial for mother, father, and child. However, in research studies in these areas, little attention has been given to men. Additionally, there is poor engagement by men, as well as a dearth of information from, and on, the male perspective. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: In total, 35 semi-structured telephone and face-to-face interviews were conducted in an office setting with three groups: 13 lay women, 13 lay men, and 9 (2 male and 7 female) healthcare professionals. Interviews took place between October 2016 and February 2017. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING

methodsParticipants were men and women of reproductive age from the general population and healthcare professionals who had completed an online fertility awareness survey and agreed to follow-up interviews. Interviews were audio recorded and lasted ~1 hour, during which participants were asked to provide their views on childbearing decision-making, and male and female representation in fertility and reproductive health. Data was transcribed verbatim and analysed qualitatively via framework analysis. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Both men and women saw fertility as a woman's issue, but from different viewpoints. Women saw it from the perspective of societal stereotypes regarding male and female roles, whereas men tended to defer to the woman's primacy in reproductive decisions. Men generally wanted to be involved in childbearing discussions and improve their fertility knowledge. However, they felt they did not have a voice on the topic because discussions have traditionally focused on women. The notion that men are not expected to be interested and engaged thus becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Healthcare professionals agreed that fertility was perceived as the woman's domain, but also highlighted that poor male involvement is typically observed across healthcare needs and is not necessarily unique to fertility and reproductive health. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: Due to the online recruitment method, there is a potential bias towards respondents of higher, rather than lower, socioeconomic status within the general population. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsFertility tends to be seen as a private topic. Additional concerted effort by reproductive health researchers, charity organisations, educators, healthcare service providers, and policy makers is needed to proactively encourage male involvement in reproductive decision-making. This can be achieved through normalising and breaking taboos around the topic, male-friendly research study design approaches, male-inclusive reproductive healthcare services, implementation of health policies that recognise the needs of men, encouraging male research staff representation, and age-appropriate educational programmes on sexual and reproductive health, which include boys and adolescents from a young age. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: Research funding was received from SPD Development Co. Ltd. B.G. and S.J. are employed by SPD Development Co. Ltd. None of the other authors have any conflict of interest related to the discussed topic. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Indexed as

childbearingfamily buildingfatherhoodfertility awarenessmen’s healthpreconception health psychosocial issuesqualitative researchrelationships and sex educationreproductive health

Identifiers

PMID31218265
PMCPMC6573469

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.