Out of focus: limited representation of men’s health needs in regional and global sexual and reproductive health policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Addressing men's own specific health concerns in the context of sexual and reproductive health (SRH) remains a largely neglected topic, despite growing levels of unmet SRH needs among men and the broader benefits of engaging men in the SRH of women and others. A comprehensive policy analysis explored how men are currently addressed and characterized within 37 key global and regional SRH-focused policies. Men's own SRH was found to be a significantly neglected policy issue. Less than half (43%) of the policies provided reference to men's SRH, and only 16% purposefully outlined steps to address men's own SRH needs. This contrasted with 78% of policies addressing women's SRH. Policies rarely provided sex disaggregated data nor targets on men's SRH outcomes. The inclusion of men was typically for solely instrumental reasons-in order to improve women's SRH. Men's SRH was best addressed within language on HIV and sexuality transmitted infections (STIs), particularly for men who have sex with men. Policy coverage was poor on men's SRH needs and roles in relation to contraception, fertility, sexual dysfunction, reproductive cancers, sexual pleasure, healthy relationships. and SRH-related discrimination. Only a quarter (24%) of the policies included a focus on one or more vulnerable male sub-group, with inadequate policy attention to the specific SRH needs of older men, disabled men, men living with serious health conditions, transgender people, and heterosexual men. An absence of focus on men's distinct SRH needs, alongside that of women, limits global understanding and visibility of SRH challenges particular to men, impeding the formulation of policies, programs, and funding priorities that sufficiently address men's needs. It also reinforces SRH as a women's sole burden and entrenches gender inequalities. Health policies should prioritize men's increased access to SRH information and care and better frame SRH as a critical part of men's lives.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".