ReviewAmerican journal of men's health
Evaluating a Tool to Support the Integration of Gender in Programs to Promote Men's Health.
Review in American journal of men's health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Workplace Interventions Targeting Mental Health Literacy, Stigma, Help-Seeking, and Help-Offering in Male-Dominated Industries: A Systematic Review.American journal of men's healthPooled it
- Mental Health Stigma Reduction Interventions Among Men: A Systematic Review.American journal of men's healthPooled it
- Trial
- Men's mental health and the arts: perceived benefits and dynamics of engagement.Health promotion international · 2023Article
- Article
- What Helps and What Hinders the Creation of a Smoke-free Home: A Qualitative Study of Fathers in Scotland.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2022Article
- Designing Men's Health Programs: The 5C Framework.American journal of men's healthArticle
- Restorative Masculine Integration Theory.American journal of men's healthArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Men's disproportionate rate of suicide and substance use has been linked to problematic conformity to traditional masculine ideals. Mental health promotion interventions directed toward men should address the gender-specific needs of men; yet, no tools exist to provide such guidance. To address this need, the Check-Mate tool was developed as part of a global evaluation of the Movember Foundation's Social Innovators Challenge (SIC). The tool provides an initial set of evidence-based guidelines for incorporating gender-related influences in men's mental health promotion programs. This article describes the development of Check-Mate and an evaluation of its usability and usefulness. Using a qualitative descriptive approach, semistructured interviews were conducted with the leads for eight of the SIC projects; they used the tool for these. Data were analyzed using conventional content analysis. Overall, project leads found the tool user-friendly. Identified strengths of Check-Mate included its practicality, adaptability, usefulness for priming thinking on gender sensitization, and value in guiding program planning and implementation. With respect to limitations, project leads explained that the complexity of men's mental health promotion programming may limit applicability of some or all approaches included in Check-Mate. They also expressed concern about how using Check-Mate might reinforce hegemonic masculine ideals. It was suggested that examples illustrating the use of Check-Mate would be a helpful accompaniment to the tool. Findings indicate that Check-Mate is a useful guide in men's mental health promotion programming. In addition to future testing of the tool in different settings, links between the tool's approaches and program outcomes should be explored.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.