“People say men don’t talk, well that’s bullshit”: A focus group study exploring challenges and opportunities for men’s mental health promotion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Men's mental health promotion presents unique challenges including gender-related barriers and stigmas, which demand novel approaches to prevention, treatment, and management. The aim of this study was to explore men's perceptions of mental health and preferences for mental health promotion. Seven focus groups (N = 59) were conducted in Sydney, Australia, including 5 groups of men (M = 50.65, SD = 13.75 years) and 2 groups of stakeholders who had frontline experience working with men (e.g., men's groups, health clubs, mental health advocates). Data were analysed using thematic analysis and interpreted using a gender relations approach to explore connections between gender roles, relations and identities, and men's mental health. Three overarching themes were identified; (1) Roles, identities, and the conceptualisation and concealment of mental health challenges, revealing challenges to mental health promotion related to perceptions of men's restrictive emotionality and emotional awareness as well as difficulties with conceptualising the internalised experiences of mental health, (2) Constraining social contexts of stigma and gender relations, identifying how social context and the policing of gender roles often obscured opportunities for discussing mental health and help-seeking behaviour, (3) Anchoring mental health promotion to acceptable lifestyle practices, highlighting potential remedies included leveraging men's social practices related to reciprocity, normalising mental health promotion relative to other behaviours, and embedding mental health promotion within acceptable masculine practices. Discussed are directions for men's community-based mental health promotion and opportunities for how masculinities may be negotiated and expanded to embody mental health promoting values.
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 | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".