ArticlePLOS global public health2025
The mental health impact on women of engaging men in health interventions in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review.
Article in PLOS global 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The field of women's health, specifically maternal and child health, have recently pushed for male partners to be included in interventions. Currently, there are gaps in understanding how engaging men in these interventions might impact women's mental wellbeing. The objective of this systematic review was to examine the evidence of the mental health impact on women of engaging male partners in health interventions in low and -middle-income countries. We conducted a systematic review of existing literature on women's health interventions that engage male partners and report mental health outcomes at the end of the intervention. The protocol for this systematic review is registered with the PROSPERO database of systematic reviews (CRD42023450412). A tailored search strategy was conducted for both peer-reviewed publications and grey literature. Fourteen peer-reviewed full-text articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria and their quality was appraised. No grey literature fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Studies were compared on key elements of the 1) intervention, 2) men's engagement methods and measurement, and 3) reported and assessed women's mental health outcomes. Studies engaged male partners in a variety of ways, including separate concurrent interventions for men and women, joint interventions in which couples went to the intervention sessions together, and a mix of both joint and concurrent intervention components. The majority of studies measured men's engagement by taking attendance. This systematic review presents critical insights into how men are engaged in women's health interventions and its impact on women's mental health. There is a dearth of research on this topic and most interventions only measure men's engagement programmatically through taking attendance.
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.