Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31557281›Full record

ReviewHealth promotion international2020

Men's health literacy: a review and recommendations.

John L Oliffe, Emma Rossnagel, Mary T Kelly, Joan L Bottorff, Cherisse Seaton, Francine Darroch

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health promotion international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

John L OliffeUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Emma RossnagelUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Mary T KellyUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Joan L BottorffUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan, British Columbia, Canada.
Cherisse SeatonUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan, British Columbia, Canada.
Francine DarrochUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although men's health promotion efforts have attracted programmatic and evaluative research, conspicuously absent are gendered insights to men's health literacy. The current scoping review article shares the findings drawn from 12 published articles addressing men's health literacy in a range of health and illness contexts. Evident was consensus that approaches tailored to men's everyday language and delivered in familiar community-based spaces were central to advancing men's health literacy, and, by extension, the effectiveness of men's health promotion programs. However, most men's health literacy studies focussed on medical knowledge of disease contexts including prostate and colon cancers, while diversity was evident regards conceptual frameworks and/or methods and measures for evaluating men's health literacy. Despite evidence that low levels of health literacy fuel stigma and men's reticence for health help-seeking, and that tailoring programs to health literacy levels is requisite to effective men's health promotion efforts, the field of men's health literacy remains underdeveloped. Based on the scoping review findings, recommendations for future research include integrating men's health literacy research as a needs analysis to more effectively design and evaluate targeted men's health promotion programs.

Indexed as

Health LiteracyHealth PromotionHealth StatusHumansMaleMen's Healthgenderhealth literacymasculinitymen

Identifiers

PMID31557281
PMCPMC7585483

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.