Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35987612›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2022

Sheds for life: health and wellbeing outcomes of a tailored community-based health promotion initiative for men's sheds in Ireland.

Aisling McGrath, Niamh Murphy, Tom Egan, Noel Richardson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Lessons Learned From a Community-Based Men's Health Fair.Journal of primary care & community health
    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.

Aisling McGrathSchool of Health Sciences, Waterford Institute of Technology, X91 K0EK, Waterford, Ireland. aisling.mcgrath@wit.ie.ORCID 0000-0003-3731-9165
Niamh MurphySchool of Health Sciences, Waterford Institute of Technology, X91 K0EK, Waterford, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-0176-2897
Tom EganSchool of Business, Waterford Institute of Technology, X91 K0EK, Waterford, Ireland.
Noel RichardsonNational Centre for Men's Health, Institute of Technology Carlow, R93 V960, Carlow, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGender is increasingly recognised as a critical factor in designing community-based health promotion programmes. Men's Sheds ('Sheds') are community-based informal environments that represent a safe space in which to engage cohorts of hard-to-reach (HTR) men in health promotion. Sheds for Life (SFL), the first structured health promotion initiative evaluated globally in Sheds, is a 10-week initiative co-designed with Shed Members (Shedders) and delivered directly in the Shed setting in Ireland. This research describes the health and wellbeing outcomes experienced by SFL participants.

methodsPurposive sampling was used to recruit a diverse representation of Shedders (n = 421) participating in SFL alongside a wait list control (n = 86). Questionnaires assessing constructs of health and wellbeing were administered one-to-one in Sheds at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months. Descriptive data for health outcomes were generated for each time point and assessed for significant changes using inferential testing, while considering COVID-19 impact.

resultsOutcomes related to subjective wellbeing, mental wellbeing, physical activity, social capital and healthy eating significantly increased post SFL (p < 0.05). Mental wellbeing scores (SWEMWBS) post SFL remained significantly higher than baseline despite COVID-19 impact (p < 0.05). Binary logistic regression indicated that the odds of a meaningful SWEMWBS change was significantly higher for shedders that had lower SWEMWBS (OR 0.804), less loneliness (OR 0.638) and lived alone (OR 0.456) at baseline. Shedders with lower SWEMBWS had higher odds of experiencing positive changes in life satisfaction (OR 0.911) and trust (OR 0.928), while Shedders who lived alone had also higher odds of experience positive changes in healthy eating (OR 0.481). Finally, inactive Shedders at baseline had higher odds of experiencing increased levels of physical activity (OR 0.582).

conclusionsFindings suggest that the inclusive, community-based SFL model is effective in engaging Shedders and facilitating positive and sustained changes in health and wellbeing outcomes. Using gender-specific approaches in the informal and safe environment of the Shed are effective in engaging men in structured health and wellbeing initiatives, particularly those who may be more vulnerable, isolated or lonely.

trial registrationThis study has been retrospectively registered with the 'International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number' registry (ISRCTN79921361) as of 05/03/2021.

Indexed as

COVID-19Men's HealthCommunity Health ServicesHealth PromotionHumansIrelandMaleCommunityEvaluationGender-specificImplementationMen’s health promotionMen’s shedsMental healthPhysical activity

Identifiers

PMID35987612
PMCPMC9392583

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.