Men building better relationships: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ISSUE ADDRESSED: Health outcomes linked to men's relationships have the potential to both promote and risk the well-being of males and their families. The current scoping review provides a synthesis of men's relationship programs (excluding criminal court mandated services) in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom to distil predominant program designs, access points, delivery modes and evaluative strategies. METHODS: Databases CINAHL, Medline, PsycInfo and Web of Science were searched for eligible articles published January 2010 and June 2020. The inclusion criteria consisted of empirical studies focussed on relationship programs for men. RESULTS: The review identified 21 articles comprising eight focussed on Fathering Identities as the Catalyst for Relationship Building and 13 targeting Men's Behaviour Change in Partner Relationships. Findings highlight the prevalence of group-based, in-person programs which men accessed via third party or self-referrals. Fathering programs highlighted the impact of men's violence on their children in appealing to attendees to strategise behavioural adjustments. Men's partner relationship programs emphasised self-control amid building strategies for proactively dealing with distress and conflict. Program evaluations consistently reported attendee feedback to gauge the acceptability and usefulness of services. CONCLUSIONS: That most men attending fathering and partner relationship programs were referred as a result of domestic violence and/or intimate partner violence underscores men's reticence for proactively seeking help as well as the absence of upstream relationship programs. There are likely enormous gains to be made by norming boys and men's relationship programs to prevent rather than correct violent and/or abusive behaviours.
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 | 0.011 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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".