Men’s Mental Health Promotion Interventions: A Scoping Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is an increasing need for mental health promotion strategies that effectively engage men. Although researchers have examined the effectiveness of diverse mental wellness interventions in male-dominated industries, and reviewed suicide prevention, early intervention, and health promotion interventions for boys and men, few have focused on sex-specific program effects. The purpose of this review was to (a) extend the previous reviews to examine the effectiveness of mental health promotion programs in males, and (b) evaluate the integration of gender-specific influences in the content and delivery of men's mental health promotion programs. A search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EMBASE databases for articles published between January 2006 and December 2016 was conducted. Findings from the 25 included studies indicated that a variety of strategies offered within (9 studies) and outside (16 studies) the workplace show promise for promoting men's mental health. Although stress was a common area of focus (14 studies), the majority of studies targeted multiple outcomes, including some indicators of positive well-being such as self-efficacy, resilience, self-esteem, work performance, and happiness/quality of life. The majority of programs were offered to both men and women, and six studies explicitly integrated gender-related influences in male-specific programs in ways that recognized men's interests and preferences.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it