SynthesisBMJ open2025
Systematic review of reviews on interventions to engage men and boys as clients, partners and agents of change for improved sexual and reproductive health and rights.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Experiences of sexuality of older cisgender gay men: a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies.Cadernos de saude publica · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Associations between recent intimate partner violence and sustained viral suppression among pregnant and postpartum women living with HIV in western Kenya: A secondary analysis of a prospective cohort (Opt4Mamas).International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Article
- Out of focus: limited representation of men's health needs in regional and global sexual and reproductive health policy.Health policy and planning · 2026Article
- Multisectoral collaboration on violence against women and children in Iraq, Jordan, and Lebanon: A comparative qualitative study.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Impact of analytical treatment interruptions on sexual behaviors: a mixed-methods longitudinal study of women enrolled in an HIV cure-related trial in Durban, South Africa.HIV research & clinical practice · 2025Article
- How do social norms influence the sexual and reproductive health-related attitudes and behaviours of very young adolescents in Sub-Saharan Africa? A scoping review.BMC public health · 2025Article
- "Our needs, our priorities, listen to us!" recommendations for improving HIV prevention and the cascade of care from people living with HIV in Manitoba, Canada: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Navigating norms: a qualitative exploration of factors shaping contraceptive use in Senegal.Frontiers in global women's health · 2025Article
- "My Wife's Healthcare Is my Healthcare": A Qualitative Study Exploring Family-Centered Strategies to Enhance Cervical Cancer Prevention in Northern Ghana.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
- Sexual and Reproductive Health and Associated Challenges in Iranian Men: A Qualitative Study.American journal of men's healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesEvidence regarding interventions to engage men and boys to improve sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) has grown rapidly across subtopics such as HIV, family planning and gender-based violence (GBV). We conducted a review of the effectiveness of interventions to engage men and boys across SRHR domains, lessons learnt about successful programming, and about harms/unintended consequences, in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC).
designSystematic review of reviews following Cochrane guidelines. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science and Cochrane were searched (18 October-9 November 2022; 9 September 2024). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible reviews were published since 2015, covered WHO-defined SRHR domain(s) and focused mostly on LMIC. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data extraction by multiple reviewers focused on intervention effectiveness, implementation best practices, unintended consequences, and quality/risk of bias.
resultsThirty-five systematic reviews were included, comprising ~960 primary studies. Reviews focused on HIV prevention/care, reproductive health, maternal and newborn health, and GBV. Reviews consistently concluded that men were successfully engaged, yielding benefits to both women and men's SRHR outcomes; no adverse intervention impacts on prevalence of SRHR outcomes were reported. We summarised the interventions most consistently found to be effective across reviews, in a programmer-friendly visual mapped onto a framework of men as clients, partners and agents of change. Person-centred, gender-transformative, multilevel approaches were most effective. Remaining evidence gaps include engaging men as contraceptive
conclusionsThere is substantial evidence supporting a range of successful interventions to engage men and boys to improve SRHR, with markedly similar principles and approaches emerging across SRHR domains. It is time to scale up and integrate these strategies, monitoring for any potential harms and tailoring as needed to socio-cultural contexts and for specific vulnerable subpopulations.
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.