Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33051283›Full record

SynthesisBMJ global health2020

Gender-transformative programming with men and boys to improve sexual and reproductive health and rights: a systematic review of intervention studies.

Eimear Ruane-McAteer, Kathryn Gillespie, Avni Amin, Áine Aventin, Martin Robinson, Jennifer Hanratty, Rajat Khosla, Maria Lohan

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ global health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

63 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Sex Education in the Spotlight: What Is Working? Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors.

Eimear Ruane-McAteerSchool of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-1669-218X
Kathryn GillespieSchool of Nursing and Midwifery and Centre for Evidence and Social Innovation, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Avni AminDepartment of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneve, Switzerland.
Áine AventinSchool of Nursing and Midwifery and Centre for Evidence and Social Innovation, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Martin RobinsonSchool of Nursing and Midwifery and Centre for Evidence and Social Innovation, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Jennifer HanrattyCentre for Evidence and Social Innovation, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Rajat KhoslaDepartment of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneve, Switzerland.
Maria LohanSchool of Nursing and Midwifery and Centre for Evidence and Social Innovation, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK m.lohan@qub.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-3525-1283

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGlobal health organisations advocate gender-transformative programming (which challenges gender inequalities) with men and boys to improve sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) for all. We systematically review evidence for this approach.

methodsWe previously reported an evidence-and-gap map (http://srhr.org/masculinities/wbincome/) and

findingsFrom 509 eligible records, we synthesised 68 studies comprising 36 randomised controlled trials, n=56 417 participants, and 32 quasi-experimental studies, n=25 554 participants. Promising programming characteristics include: multicomponent activities of education, persuasion, modelling and enablement; multilevel programming that mobilises wider communities; targeting both men and women; and programmes of longer duration than three months. Six of the seven interventions evaluated more than once show efficacy. However, we identified a significant risk of bias in the overall available evidence. Important gaps in evidence relate to safe abortion and SRHR during disease outbreaks.

conclusionIt is widely acknowledged by global organisations that the question is no longer

Indexed as

Reproductive HealthRight to HealthFemaleGlobal HealthHumansMalechild healthhealth services researchmaternal healthpublic healthsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33051283
PMCPMC7554509

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.