Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42432609›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2026

'You only care when it hurts' - men's engagement with their health: a qualitative interview study in Lower Austria.

Ursula Griebler, Julia Daxenbichler, Isabel Moser, Nina Mitterbauer, Alexander Pell, Denise Hebesberger, Christina Koscher-Kien

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Ursula GrieblerDepartment for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, University for Continuing Education Krems, Krems, Austria. Ursula.griebler@donau-uni.ac.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9958-3714
Julia DaxenbichlerDepartment for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, University for Continuing Education Krems, Krems, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-7620-9279
Isabel MoserDepartment for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, University for Continuing Education Krems, Krems, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-8728-4792
Nina MitterbauerDepartment for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, University for Continuing Education Krems, Krems, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-4171-7136
Alexander PellDepartment for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, University for Continuing Education Krems, Krems, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1413-1955
Denise HebesbergerDepartment for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, University for Continuing Education Krems, Krems, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-0766-0815
Christina Koscher-KienDepartment for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, University for Continuing Education Krems, Krems, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2158-962X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCompared with women, men have a lower life expectancy, engage more frequently in risky health behaviours, underuse preventive healthcare services, and are less likely to attend routine health checks or seek mental health support. Their low participation rates indicate they show less interest in health promotion. Existing literature on barriers and facilitators to men's participation in health promotion programmes focuses on older adults from English-speaking countries. The present study's aim was to identify the preferences, attitudes, and barriers related to participation in community-based health promotion among young and middle-aged men in Lower Austria.

methodsWe conducted a qualitative exploratory study using semi-structured interviews with 28 men aged from 15 to 29 or 45 to 65 years living or working in Lower Austria with a low to medium education level and little or no prior experience with health promotion programmes. Participants were recruited using a maximum-variation sampling strategy through conventional recruitment and opportunistic outreach in everyday settings. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically.

resultsOverall, men favoured health promotion offers that genuinely interested them, addressed a concrete need, offered a clear purpose and personal benefit, and used engaging formats and credible facilitators. When these conditions were unmet, participation was perceived as unnecessary or unappealing. In addition to lack of time, insufficient information about existing offers, and a low perceived need, traditional masculine gender norms emerged as a key barrier to health promotion programme participation, as participation, especially in mental health, was associated with weakness. Contrastingly, positive role models, gentle social pressure, and training alongside other men reduced hesitation and facilitated participation. Three groups of men emerged: self-organised, sceptical, and undecided but interested, the latter representing the greatest potential for engagement.

conclusionsMen's health promotion offers should promote a clear purpose and personal benefit and use engaging formats with credible, relatable facilitators. Interventions and strategies must be co-designed to ensure men's genuine interest and address their concrete needs. Gender-responsive strategies should prioritise undecided men, embed programmes in familiar social contexts, emphasise well-being and quality of life rather than the triggering term health, and integrate mental health in a non-stigmatising way.

Indexed as

Health PromotionMen's HealthAdolescentAdultAgedAustriaHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMen's Health ServicesMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchYoung AdultBarriersHealth promotionMenMental healthWell-being

Identifiers

PMID42432609
PMCPMC13640224

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.