Skip to main content


Table 1 Characteristics of Included Studies

From: What works with men? A systematic review of health promoting interventions targeting men

Author Setting Participants Study Design Outcomes Intervention Control/Comparison
Smoking Cessation
Jenkins et al. 1997 Community, USA n = 1411 18+ years Vietnamese speaking Controlled before-and-after 1. Proportion of current smokers 2. Proportion who had quit smoking Intervention: Media-led anti-tobacco campaign San Francisco. Over 2 years Control: Comparison community.
Pallonen, U. E. et al. 1994 Primary care, Finland n = 375 42–60 years RCT 1. 7 day point prevalence abstinence. 2. Prolonged abstinence 3. Probability of stage changes 4. Exposure and subject evaluation of intervention Intervention: Self help manuals 2 years Control: Usual care
Stanton et al. 2004 Primary care, Australia n = 561 16–56 years Partners are pregnant RCT Quit rate at end of pregnancy Video/NRT and information/support material. Control: Brochure providing contact details for the available smoking cessation options.
Diet and Physical Activity
Cook et al. 2001 Workplace, New Zealand n = 253 mean 35 years at intervention site mean 42.9 years at control site male employees Controlled before-and-after 1. Dietary and lifestyle behaviours 2. Nutrition knowledge 3. BMI 4. Waist circumference 5. BP Intervention: Health promotion programme – 30 min workshop once a month for 6 months Control: No treatment
Williams and Lewis 2002 University, USA n = 45 20–25 years, mean 21.5 RCT 1. Percent calories from fat 2. Assessment of counselling 1. Nutrition counselling and measurement of cholesterol (NC + SC) 2. Nutrition counselling only (NC) 3. Measurement of serum cholesterol only (SC) Control: No intervention.
Cardiovascular Disease
McCrone et al. 2001 Primary care, USA n = 33 57–78 years Controlled before-and-after 1. Body composition 2. Metabolism 3. CV fitness Intervention: SM: Multibehavioural stress management (nutrition, exercise and stress management) Control: ED: Multibehavioural educational intervention (nutrition, exercise and education) 6 months Exercise physiologist, dietitian and nurse.
Pritchard et al. 2002 Workplace, Australia n = 66 mean 43.4 years overweight men RCT 1. Weight 2. Fat and lean mass 3. Dietary energy and percentage dietary fat intake 4. Physical activity indices 5. BP 6. Insulin, blood lipids and lipoproteins 1. Dietary intervention – low-fat diet using the National Heart Foundation booklet, The Weight Loss Guide 2. Exercise intervention – subjects selected own exercise for a min 3 × 30 mins p/week above their pre-study exercise level (12 months) Control: Maintain pre-study dietary and activity patterns (16 of control group followed a diet and exercise program for a subsequent 12 months).
Prostate Cancer
Davison et al. 1999 Primary care, Canada n = 100 50–79 years, mean 62.1 RCT 1. Preferred and assumed roles in screening decision making 2. Levels of state anxiety 3. Levels of decisional conflict 4. Screening behaviour Intervention: Verbal and written information about the controversies surrounding screening for prostate cancer. Control: Investigator talked about general issues.
Flood et al. 1996 Primary care, USA Study 1: n = 409 Study 2: n = 222 50+ years Quasi RCT 1. Knowledge concerning prostate cancer and screening 2. Preference regarding treatment and screening Study 1 Intervention: Educational video Control: Control video Study 2 Intervention: Educational video Control: No intervention
Frosch et al. 2003 Primary care, USA n = 226 50+ years RCT Primary outcomes: 1. Convenience, effort required, satisfaction with intervention. 2. Knowledge 3. Choice of PSA test Also secondary outcomes. Intervention: Prostate cancer education website Control: Prostate cancer education video
Gattellari and Ward 2005 Community, Australia n = 421 50–70 years RCT 1. Knowledge 2. Views towards PSA screening 3. Decisional conflict (post-test only) 4. Decisional control 5. Worry 6. Perceived ability to make informed choice 7. Propensity to undergo PSA screening during next 12 months 8. Likelihood of accepting doctor's recommendation to go to PSA screening (post test only) 9. Scenario-based assessment 10. Perceptions of GP fault regarding adverse consequences of screening decisions 11. Demographic and health info 12. Evaluation of materials received (post test). Comparing 3 educational resources 1. Leaflet 2. Video 3. Booklet
Hammond et al. 2001 Primary care, USA n = 1959 mean 66.5 years RCT, cluster randomisation 1. Health Status 2. Urinary symptoms 3. Treatment received 4. Prostate related knowledge 5. Physicians management of prostate conditions Intervention: Practice intervention for physicians. Patient brochures, 2 videotapes. 18 months Control: Usual care
Myers et al. 1999 Primary care, USA n = 413 40–70 years African American RCT Adherence (to come for education and early detection) Intervention: Print materials and telephone contacts. "Pro-record" tailored to each recipient – educational booklet. Control: Print material and telephone contacts.
Myers et al. 2005 Primary care, USA n = 242 ≥ 40 years African American RCT Digital rectal examination (DRE) Prostate specific antigen (PSE) Intervention: Enhanced Intervention (EI) Information book and screening decision educational session. Control: Standard Intervention (SI) Information Booklet
Partin et al. 2004 Primary care, USA n = 1152 ≥ 50 years RCT 1. Screening knowledge 2. Decision-making participation 3. Preferences 4. Behaviours 1. Mailed pamphlet 2. Mailed video No intervention
Ruthman and Ferrans 2004 Primary care, USA n = 104 51–77 years, mean 66 Controlled before-and-after, staged 1. Knowledge 2. Preference for PSA test 3. Satisfaction with care 4. Assessment of Video Intervention: Educational video "The PSA Decision: What you Need to Know". 20 minutes. Control: Usual care.
Schapira and Van Ruiswyk 2000 Primary care, USA n = 257 50–80 years RCT 1. Prostate cancer screening knowledge 2. Prostate cancer screening beliefs 3. Prostate cancer screening decisions (post-test) Intervention: Illustrated pamphlet (decision-aid). Control: Written pamphlet.
Summer et al. 2002 Workplace, England n = 458 Controlled before-and-after 1. Knowledge 2. Intentions to seek help 3. Attitudes to health promotion in the workplace 4. Process indicators Site 1: Posters and leaflets Site 2: Posters and leaflets, visit by nurse Site 3: Posters and leaflets, visit by nurse and team of 8 men's health volunteers
Volk et al. 2003 Follow-up of Volk et al. 1999 at 1 year Primary care, USA n = 160 45–70 years RCT 1. Screening behaviours 2. Satisfaction with screening decision 3. Knowledge of prostate cancer 20 minute educational video on advantages and disadvantages of PSA screening and accompanying brochure. Control: No intervention
Volk et al. 1999 Primary care, USA n = 160 45–70 years RCT 1. Knowledge of prostate cancer 2. Reported preferences for PSA testing 3. Ratings of the videotape 20 minute educational video on advantages and disadvantages of PSA screening and accompanying brochure. Control: No intervention.
Weinrich et al. 1998 Primary care, USA n = 1717 40 – 70 years, mean 52 Quasi, 2 by 2 factorial, randomly assigned Participation in free prostate cancer screening 1. Traditional 2. Peer-educator 3. Client-navigator 4. Combination of peer-educator and client-navigator
Wilt et al. 2001 Primary care, USA n = 550 50+ years RCT 1. Knowledge about early detection and treatment 2. PSA testing Intervention: "Early Prostate Cancer" pamphlet mailed 1 week before clinic appointment. Control: Usual care.
Testicular Cancer
McCullagh et al. 2005 Workplace and leisure sites, UK n = 835 15–44 years Controlled before-and-after 1. Knowledge 2. Intention to perform TSE Practice of TSE Intervention: Check'Em Out information resources at workplace and leisure sites. Control: No intervention
Steadman and Quine 2004 University, England n = 159 18–35 years RCT 1. Performance of TSE 2. Future intention to perform TSE Intervention: Implementation intentions (Illustrated leaflet containing detailed instructions on how to perform TSE.) Control: Illustrated leaflet only.
Preventive Health Screening
Holland 2005 Primary Care, USA n = 5677 40–60 years RCT 1. Colorectal cancer screening 2. Cholesterol screening 3. Prostate cancer screening 4. Preventive health care visits Intervention Matrix: Health provider stickers, letter/pamphlet, loved-one postcard.
Skin Cancer
Youl et al. 2005 Primary Care, Australia n = 1322 30–79 years RCT Rates of attendance Intervention: Personalised letter plus information brochure Control: Personalised letter
Karlsson et al. 2005 Community, Finland N = 4418 30–49 years Controlled before-and-after. 1. Drinking behaviour (AUDIT) 2. Annual alcohol consumption Intervention: Self help pamphlet Control: No intervention
  1. AUDIT = Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, BMI = body mass index, BP = blood pressure, CV = cardiovascular, DRE = digital rectal examination, NRT = nicotine replacement therapy, PSA = prostate-specific antigen, RCT = randomised controlled trial, TSE = testicular self-examination.