MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

How do women, men, and health providers perceive interventions to influence men's engagement in maternal and newborn health? A qualitative evidence synthesis

2021· review· en· W3206167688 on OpenAlexaff
Liz Comrie‐Thomson, Prerna Gopal, Katherine E. Eddy, Adama Baguiya, Nina Gerlach, Caroline Sauvé, Anayda Portela

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Science & Medicine · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSex and Gender in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersBurnet InstituteWorld Health OrganizationState Government of VictoriaUnited States Agency for International Development
KeywordsPsychological interventionQualitative researchMedicineHealth careNursingGerontologyPsychologySociologyEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Globally, there is growing awareness of the important contributions men can make as key stakeholders in maternal and newborn health (MNH), and increased investment in interventions designed to influence men's engagement to improve MNH outcomes. Interventions typically target men, women, couples or health providers, yet how these stakeholders perceive and experience interventions is not well understood and the fact that women may experience these interventions as disempowering has been identified as a major concern. This review aims to synthesise how women, men, and providers perceive and experience interventions designed to influence men's engagement in MNH, in order to identify perceived benefits and risks of participating in interventions, and other key factors affecting uptake of and adherence to interventions. We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis based on a systematic search of the literature, analysing a purposive sample of 66 out of 144 included studies to enable rich synthesis. Women, men and providers report that interventions enable more and better care for women, newborns and men, and strengthen family relationships between the newborn, father and mother. At the same time, stakeholders report that poorly designed or implemented interventions carry risks of harm, including constraining some women's access to MNH services and compounding negative impacts of existing gender inequalities. Limited health system capacity to deliver men-friendly MNH services, and pervasive gender inequality, can limit the accessibility and acceptability of interventions. Sociodemographic factors, household needs, and peer networks can influence how men choose to support MNH, and may affect demand for and adherence to interventions. Overall, perceived benefits of interventions designed to influence men's engagement in MNH are compelling, reported risks of harm are likely manageable through careful implementation, and there is clear evidence of demand from women and men, and some providers, for increased opportunities and support for men to engage in MNH.

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 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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.741
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.276
GPT teacher head0.538
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Science & MedicineSame topicSex and Gender in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207