Men’s Mental Health Promotion Interventions: A Scoping Review
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".