MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133465332 · doi:10.1186/s12961-020-00655-0

The role of self-care interventions on men’s health-seeking behaviours to advance their sexual and reproductive health and rights

2021· review· en· W3133465332 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Research Policy and Systems · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMale Reproductive Health Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsReproductive healthPublic healthPsychological interventionHealth services researchMedicineHealth administrationHealth careSexual and reproductive health and rightsHealth policyReproductive medicineSexual behaviorNursingPsychologyEnvironmental healthReproductive rightsClinical psychologyPregnancyPolitical sciencePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Self-care interventions are influencing people's access to, expectation and understanding of healthcare beyond formal health delivery systems. In doing so, self-care interventions could potentially improve health-seeking behaviours. While many men proactively engage in maintaining and promoting their health, the focus on men's health comes from the recognition, at least partially, that male socialization and social norms can induce men and boys to have a lower engagement in institutionalized public health entities and systems around their sexual and reproductive health and rights, that could impact negatively on themselves, their partners and children. MAIN TEXT: A research agenda could consider the ways that public health messaging and information on self care practices for sexual and reproductive health and rights could be tailored to reflect men's lived realities and experiences. Three examples of evidence-based self-care interventions related to sexual and reproductive health and rights that men can, and many do, engage in are briefly discussed: condom use, HIV self-testing and use of telemedicine and digital platforms for sexual health. We apply four core elements that contribute to health, including men's health (people-centred approaches, quality health systems, a safe and supportive enabling environment, and behaviour-change communication) to each intervention where further research can inform normative guidance. CONCLUSION: Engaging men and boys and facilitating their participation in self care can be an important policy intervention to advance global sexual and reproductive health and rights goals. The longstanding model of men neglecting or even sabotaging their wellbeing needs to be replaced by healthier lifestyles, which requires understanding how factors related to social support, social norms, power, academic performance or employability conditions, among others, influence men's engagement with health services and with their own self care practices.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.473
GPT teacher head0.630
Teacher spread0.156 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it