Challenges working with men: Australian therapists' perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Emerging research highlights that therapists experience difficulty engaging and retaining male clients in talk therapy. Understanding therapists' challenges when working with men can inform gender-specific training efforts. METHODS: Open-ended qualitative survey data were collected from a sample of 421 Australian-based therapists. Participants described that which they find most challenging about therapeutic work with men. Responses were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three themes were revealed: (1) men's wavering commitment and engagement; (2) males as ill-equipped for therapy; and (3) therapists' uncertainty. Contrasting state and trait constructs, much of the men's state-based wavering commitment and engagement was positioned as amenable to change whereas traits assigned men as ill-equipped for therapy and unreachable. CONCLUSION: These findings underscore a clear need to better target training efforts to directly respond to the needs of therapists working with men, such that all therapists are well-equipped to meet men with gender-sensitive therapy.
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 | 0.022 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".