How do women, men, and health providers perceive interventions to influence men's engagement in maternal and newborn health? A qualitative evidence synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.101 | 0.132 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".