Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39857541›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2025

Exploring the Efficacy of Aboriginal Men's Socioemotional Healing Programs in Australia: A Scoping Review of Evaluated Programs.

Elizabeth Horak, Sandra C Thompson

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

2 authors.

Elizabeth HorakSchool of Health, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057, USA.ORCID 0009-0007-6447-3279
Sandra C ThompsonWestern Australia Centre for Rural Health, School of Allied Health, University of Western Australia, Geraldton 6530, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0327-7155

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (hereafter, respectfully, Indigenous) men's health and social indicators reflect an ongoing legacy of social disruption with profound implications for broader family and community contexts. In response to recognized needs, healing programs have been implemented within Australia. The literature on relevant best practices for Indigenous men's healing was explored to inform the planning and implementation of a local program. A scoping review of electronic databases was undertaken to retrieve information between 2012 and 2022 on social and emotional healing programs for Indigenous men that included a program evaluation. Of the 2123 identified articles, many lacked a program evaluation or were not specific to male participants, with nine meeting the inclusion criteria for the review. Six central elements that supported the programs' reported efficacy were identified: kinship, cultural understanding, a view of healing as being holistic, a strengths-based approach, a male leadership team, and a consistent meeting space. These elements were important for the social and emotional healing of the Indigenous male participants. Based on these findings, there is an increased need for the identified elements to be incorporated into programs for Indigenous men to accompany ongoing efforts in improving the wellbeing of the Indigenous population overall.

Indexed as

Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander PeoplesMen's HealthAustraliaHumansMaleProgram EvaluationSocial FactorsAboriginalAustraliacultural understandingevaluationsfamily violencegenderhealingprogramssocioemotional wellbeing

Identifiers

PMID39857541
PMCPMC11764584

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.