Men’s Health Research in New Zealand: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Globally, there has been a growing awareness of the health challenges faced by men. The current public health agenda in Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ) does not specifically address the needs of men. The aim of this scoping review was to capture the major health issues facing men in NZ and particularly to identify the knowledge gaps in the understanding of men’s health within the NZ context. This was achieved by presenting key data on their health status and systematically mapping research in NZ related to men’s health; international data are also referenced for context as relevant. Method: A search and screening of the literature were conducted using Ovid, Web of Science and Scopus databases from January 1996 to July 2021, with advice from a medical librarian. Search terms included “men’s/male’s health” and “men’s/male’s health NZ.” An environmental scan of international literature was also carried out and information from the Ministry of Health and Statistics NZ was obtained to provide context of the status of research on men’s health in NZ. Main Findings: In keeping with international literature, the major health issues for men in NZ are life-limiting diseases including cancer and cardiovascular disease, the spread of overweight and obesity, issues with masculinity and help-seeking behaviours, unhealthy lifestyles, mental health issues and poor health literacy. The main areas of research related to men’s health from the NZ literature were highlighted. Discussion: Men’s health remains an under-recognised issue in NZ. If we are to address current inequities in health for men, clinicians, researchers and relevant agencies need to pay more attention to men’s health issues and take up the challenge to highlight and promote men’s health status in NZ.
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 | 0.042 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 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".