SynthesisBMC public health2026
Effectiveness and gender-tailoring of suicide prevention interventions for men: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness and gender-tailoring of suicide prevention interventions for men: a systematic review.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMen have 2-4 times higher suicide mortality than women and are less likely to seek help, with disparities linked to restrictive masculine norms and stigma. This review aimed to synthesize the effectiveness of suicide prevention interventions targeting men and identify gender-tailoring strategies.
methodsStudies evaluating suicide prevention interventions targeting men were included if conducted in male-only samples and reporting outcomes related to suicidality (e.g., suicide deaths, suicide attempts, suicidal ideation), depression, or help-seeking (e.g., behaviors, intentions, attitudes). Six databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CINAHL) were searched for peer-reviewed English-language studies published up to 31 December 2025. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 and ROBINS-I. Due to heterogeneity, findings were synthesized narratively. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420250655554).
resultsSeventeen articles evaluating 14 interventions were included. Only one study assessed suicide deaths, and none occurred. Among RCTs, no significant effects were observed for suicide attempts, suicidal ideation, or depression. Help-seeking behaviors and intentions showed mixed evidence of improvement, with no improvement in help-seeking attitudes. Gender-tailoring strategies were synthesized into seven categories: intervention design and development, risk targeting, content and messaging, outreach and recruitment, delivery modalities, male representation and role modeling, and communication and action orientation.
conclusionsEvidence for the effectiveness of suicide prevention interventions targeting men remains limited, with no clear effects on suicidality or depression and mixed evidence for improvements in help-seeking. Risk of bias was generally moderate to high. A wide range of gender-tailoring strategies was identified. Further development of gender-responsive approaches and more rigorous evaluation are needed to reduce male suicide mortality.
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.