Men’s experiences of HeadsUpGuys: A strength-based case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Suicide is one of the leading causes of death of men. This article reports on men’s experiences of using an e-mental health resource, HeadsUpGuys, which was designed to support men’s management and recovery from depression and suicidality. Design: Survey methodology was used to report men’s experiences of using the website. Constructs of interest included mental health literacy, stigma, attitudes, taking action, help-seeking and satisfaction with the resource. Survey items were developed specifically for the study. Setting: The survey was conducted online. Methods: Participants were recruited via the HeadsUpGuys website ( headsupguys.org ) and invited to participate in the survey if they were (a) male, (b) visiting the site for help with their own health, (c) 18 years of age or older and (d) able to read English. Results: A total of 443 men participated in the study. A high proportion indicated that visiting HeadsUpGuys helped improve their knowledge of suicidality among men and better recognise symptoms of male depression. The majority reported a reduction in their stigmatising beliefs about depression and suicidality among men. An increased sense of hope for recovery was reported by many participants. The majority of men also reported feeling inspired to take action towards recovery and having a better understanding of the steps they needed to take. Furthermore, a high proportion indicated they were more likely to seek help from both peers and professionals after visiting the site. Most men reported being satisfied with the HeadsUpGuys resource and would recommend it to others. Conclusion: A tailored mental health resource for men has the capacity to facilitate important shifts in constructs that play a critical role in shaping help-seeking behaviours among men. Considering the dearth of free public health resources to support men’s mental health, the HeadsUpGuys programme not only helps to fill this gap, but also provides an example of effective engagement of men to guide the development of other tailored programmes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".