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

Alcohol

  

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.