Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35287514›Full record

SynthesisAmerican journal of men's health

The Role of Community-Based Men's Sheds in Health Promotion for Older Men: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review.

Linda Foettinger, Birte Marie Albrecht, Thomas Altgeld, Dirk Gansefort, Carina Recke, Imke Stalling, Karin Bammann

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Linda FoettingerInstitute for Public Health and Nursing Research (IPP), University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0750-2359
Birte Marie AlbrechtInstitute for Public Health and Nursing Research (IPP), University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
Thomas AltgeldState Association for Health and Academy for Social Medicine Lower Saxony, Lower Saxony, Hannover, Germany.
Dirk GansefortState Association for Health and Academy for Social Medicine Lower Saxony, Lower Saxony, Hannover, Germany.
Carina ReckeInstitute for Public Health and Nursing Research (IPP), University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
Imke StallingInstitute for Public Health and Nursing Research (IPP), University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
Karin BammannInstitute for Public Health and Nursing Research (IPP), University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
University of Bremen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Men's Sheds are a community-based health promotion concept which brings men together to engage in joint activities. Prior research reported beneficial effects on health and well-being of the participants; however, evidence is limited. The main objective of this systematic review is to provide an extensive overview of current research on the effectiveness of Men's Sheds on self-rated health, social isolation, and well-being by applying a mixed-methods approach. In addition, this review aims to identify how to successfully transfer and implement the concept. Eligible for inclusion were all studies published in English, German, or French that specifically referred to the concept of Men's Sheds. Four databases were searched for eligible studies, followed by a hand search on websites and reference lists. Methodological quality of included studies was assessed using checklists developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Following the convergent integrated approach, quantitative data were transformed and merged with qualitative data to conduct a thematic analysis. Overall, 35 qualitative, nine quantitative, and eight mixed-methods studies were included. We found evidence regarding benefits of shed participation on self-rated health, social isolation, and well-being. We identified three key characteristics of a successful Men's Shed, including appropriate shed facilities, sufficient funding as well as a participant-driven management and organization of the shed. This mixed-methods systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of the evidence base concerning Men's Sheds and highlights the need for longitudinal studies investigating causal relationships and gathering sufficient information on how to successfully transfer and implement the concept of Men's Sheds in other countries.

Indexed as

MenMen's HealthAgedHealth PromotionHumansMaleSocial Isolationhealth promotionMen’s Shedsself-rated healthsocial isolationsubjective well-being

Identifiers

PMID35287514
PMCPMC8928410
OpenAlexW4220855619

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.