Approaches to Engaging Men During Primary Healthcare Encounters: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gender-responsive healthcare is critical to advancing men's health given that masculinities intersect with other social determinants to impact help-seeking, engagement with primary healthcare, and patient outcomes. A scoping review was undertaken with the aim to synthesize gender-responsive approaches used by healthcare providers (HCPs) to engage men with primary healthcare. MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases were searched for articles published between 2000 and February 2024. Titles and abstracts for 15,659 citations were reviewed, and 97 articles met the inclusion criteria. Data were extracted and analyzed thematically. Thirty-three approaches were synthesized from across counseling/psychology, general practice, social work, nursing, psychiatry, pharmacy, and unspecified primary healthcare settings. These were organized into three interrelated themes: (a) tailoring communication to reach men; (b) purposefully structuring treatment to meet men's health needs, and (c) centering the therapeutic alliance to retain men in care. Strength-based and asset-building approaches focused on reading and responding to a diversity of masculinities was reinforced across the three findings. While these approaches are recommended for the judicious integration into health practitioner education and practice, this review highlighted that the evidence remains underdeveloped, particularly for men who experience health inequities. Critical priorities for further research include intersectional considerations and operationalizing gender-responsive healthcare approaches for men and its outcomes, particularly at first point-of-contact encounters.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".