ArticleHealth policy and planning2026
Out of focus: limited representation of men's health needs in regional and global sexual and reproductive health policy.
Article in Health policy and planning, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Out of focus: limited representation of men's health needs in regional and global sexual and reproductive health policy.Health policy and planning · 2026Article
- Locating Men in Sexual and Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice: Past, Present, Futures.Studies in family planning · 2025Article
- The impact of male contraception on global sexual and reproductive health and rights.Contraception · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Addressing men's own specific health concerns in the context of sexual and reproductive health (SRH) remains a largely neglected topic, despite growing levels of unmet SRH needs among men and the broader benefits of engaging men in the SRH of women and others. A comprehensive policy analysis explored how men are currently addressed and characterized within 37 key global and regional SRH-focused policies. Men's own SRH was found to be a significantly neglected policy issue. Less than half (43%) of the policies provided reference to men's SRH, and only 16% purposefully outlined steps to address men's own SRH needs. This contrasted with 78% of policies addressing women's SRH. Policies rarely provided sex disaggregated data nor targets on men's SRH outcomes. The inclusion of men was typically for solely instrumental reasons-in order to improve women's SRH. Men's SRH was best addressed within language on HIV and sexuality transmitted infections (STIs), particularly for men who have sex with men. Policy coverage was poor on men's SRH needs and roles in relation to contraception, fertility, sexual dysfunction, reproductive cancers, sexual pleasure, healthy relationships. and SRH-related discrimination. Only a quarter (24%) of the policies included a focus on one or more vulnerable male sub-group, with inadequate policy attention to the specific SRH needs of older men, disabled men, men living with serious health conditions, transgender people, and heterosexual men. An absence of focus on men's distinct SRH needs, alongside that of women, limits global understanding and visibility of SRH challenges particular to men, impeding the formulation of policies, programs, and funding priorities that sufficiently address men's needs. It also reinforces SRH as a women's sole burden and entrenches gender inequalities. Health policies should prioritize men's increased access to SRH information and care and better frame SRH as a critical part of men's lives.
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.