Skip to main content


Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

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
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
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
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
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
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
Primary outcomes:
1. Convenience, effort required, satisfaction with intervention.
2. Knowledge
3. Choice of PSA test
Also secondary outcomes.
Intervention: Prostate cancer education
Control: Prostate cancer education video
Gattellari and Ward 2005
Community, Australia
n = 421
50–70 years
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.