Top

Systematic Reviews

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Protocol

Men’s sheds as community-based health promotion for men aged 50 plus: protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review

Authors: Birte Marie Albrecht, Linda Foettinger, Karin Bammann

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

Background

Men are less likely to participate in health promotion. One approach to reach men is the concept of men’s sheds. This community-based health promotion concept brings older men together to engage in joint activities. Prior research revealed various health-related effects of men’s sheds, such as benefits for well-being and mental health. To strengthen the current evidence base of men’s sheds, a mixed-methods systematic review analysing the association between participation and self-rated health, subjective well-being, and social isolation will be conducted. Moreover, information on how to successfully implement men’s sheds will be gathered.

Methods

This mixed-methods systematic review will follow the guidelines of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). The databases MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and OpenGrey and the websites of men’s sheds associations will be searched for publications. Additionally, a hand search in the reference lists of the included publications will be conducted. Qualitative and quantitative studies published in English, German, or French will be considered for inclusion. The quality of the selected studies will be assessed using the JBI critical appraisal checklists. Following the convergent integrated approach, quantitative data will be transformed into textual descriptions, and subsequently combined with data from qualitative studies as well as from the qualitative components of mixed-methods studies in a simultaneous data synthesis.

Discussion

The results of this systematic review will lead to a comprehensive understanding of the current evidence base regarding the effectiveness of men’s sheds. Furthermore, they will provide useful implications for the implementation of men’s sheds.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42020219390

Available only for authorised users

Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Final Report of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008.

Statistisches Bundesamt. Pressemitteilung Nr. 377 vom 29. September 2020. 2020. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2020/09/PD20_377_12621.html. Accessed 13 Nov 2020.

Banks I. No man’s land: men, illness, and the NHS. BMJ. 2001;323:1058.CrossRef

Carroll P, Kirwan L, Lambe B. Engaging ‘hard to reach’ men in community based health promotions. Int J Health Promot Educ. 2014;52(3):120–30.CrossRef

Robertson S, Witty K, Zwolinsky S, Day R. Men’s health promotion interventions: what have we learned from previous programmes? Community Pract. 2013;86(11):38–41.PubMed

Doyal L. Sex, gender, and health: the need for a new approach. BMJ. 2001;323:1061.CrossRef

Australian Men’s Shed Association. About men’s sheds. 2017. https://mensshed.org/what-is-a-mens-shed/. Accessed 13 Nov 2020.

Cudjoe TKM, Roth DL, Szanton SL, Wolff JL, Boyd CM, Thorpe RJ. The epidemiology of social isolation: National Health and Aging Trends Study. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2018;75(1):107–13.CrossRef

Umberson D, Montez JK. Social relationships and health: a flashpoint for health policy. J Health Soc Behav. 2010;51(S):S54-S66.

10.

Milligan C, Payne S, Bingley A, Cockshott Z. Evaluation of the men in sheds pilot programme. London: Age UK; 2012.

11.

Wilson NJ, Cordier R. A narrative review of Men’s Sheds literature: reducing social isolation and promoting men’s health and well-being. Health Soc Care Community. 2013;21(5):451–63.CrossRef

12.

Australian Men’s Shed Association. Spanner in the works? – when was your last service? 2019. https://malehealth.org.au/. Accessed 13 Nov 2020.

13.

Milligan C, Neary D, Payne S, Hanratty B, Irwin P, Dowrick C. Older men and social activity: a scoping review of Men’s Sheds and other gendered interventions. Ageing Soc. 2016;36(5):895–923.CrossRef

14.

Kelly D, Steiner A, Mason H, Teasdale S. Men’s sheds: a conceptual exploration of the causal pathways for health and well-being. Health Soc Care Community. 2019;27(5):1147–57.CrossRef

15.

Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1.CrossRef

16.

Lizarondo L, Stern C, Carrier J, Godfrey C, Rieger K, Salmond S, et al. Chapter 8: mixed methods systematic reviews. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Ed.). JBI manual for evidence synthesis. JBI, 2020. https://synthesismanual.jbi.global. Accessed 23 Jun 2021.

17.

The Joanna Briggs Institute. The System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information (SUMARI). 2020. https://www.jbisumari.org. Accessed 20 Nov 2020.

18.

Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. Int J Nurs Stud. 2013;50(5):587–92.CrossRef

19.

Jylhä M. What is self-rated health and why does it predict mortality? Towards a unified conceptual model. Soc Sci Med. 2009;69(3):307–16.CrossRef

20.

Jenkinson C, Wright L, Coulter A. Criterion validity and reliability of the SF-36 in a population sample. Qual Life Res. 1994;3:7–12.CrossRef

21.

Baćak V, Ólafsdóttir S. Gender and validity of self-rated health in nineteen European countries. Scand J Public Health. 2017;45(6):647–53.CrossRef

22.

Bech P, Gudex C, Staehr JK. The WHO (Ten) Well-Being Index: validation in diabetes. Psychother Psychosom. 1996;65:183–90.CrossRef

23.

Topp CW, Østergaard SD, Søndergaard S, Bech P. The WHO-5 Well-Being Index: a systematic review of the literature. Psychother Psychosom. 2015;84:167–76.CrossRef

24.

Schougaard LMV, de Thurah A, Bech P, Hjollund NH, Christiansen DH. Test-retest reliability and measurement error of the Danish WHO-5 Well-being Index in outpatients with epilepsy. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16:175.CrossRef

25.

Blozik E, Wagner JT, Gillmann G, Iliffe S, von Renteln-Kruse W, Lubben J, et al. Social network assessment in community-dwelling older persons: results from a study of three European populations. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2009;21(2):150–7.CrossRef

26.

The Joanna Briggs Institute. Critical appraisal tools for use in JBI systematic reviews. 2020. https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools. Accessed 23 Jun 2021.

27.

The Joanna Briggs Institute. Checklist for qualitative research. Critical appraisal tools for use in JBI systematic reviews. 2020. Available under: https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools.

28.

The Joanna Briggs Institute. Checklist for analytical cross sectional research. Critical appraisal tools for use in JBI systematic reviews. 2020. Available under: https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools.

29.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.

30.

Nurmi MA, Mackenzie CS, Roger K, Reynolds K, Urquhart J. Older men’s perceptions of the need for and access to male-focused community programmes such as Men’s Sheds. Ageing Soc. 2018;38:794–816.CrossRef

31.

Waling A, Fildes D. ‘Don’t fix what ain’t broke’: evaluating the effectiveness of a Men’s Shed in inner-regional Australia. Health Soc Care Community. 2017;25(2):758–68.CrossRef

32.

Ormsby J, Stanley M, Jaworski K. Older men’s participation in community-based men’s sheds programmes. Health Soc Care Community. 2010;18(6):607–13.CrossRef

Title: Men’s sheds as community-based health promotion for men aged 50 plus: protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review
Authors: Birte Marie Albrecht
Linda Foettinger
Karin Bammann
Publication date: 01-12-2021
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01762-x

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Men’s sheds as community-based health promotion for men aged 50 plus: protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review

Abstract

Background

Methods

Discussion

Systematic review registration

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Discussion

Systematic review registration

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Mask decontamination methods (model N95) for respiratory protection: a rapid review

Safety of exercise training in multiple sclerosis: a protocol for an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

The ability of comorbidity indices to predict mortality in an orthopedic setting: a systematic review

Process evaluation of complex interventions in chronic and neglected tropical diseases in low- and middle-income countries—a scoping review protocol

Effect of community-based interventions targeting female sex workers along the HIV care cascade in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Therapeutic potential of pluripotent stem cell-derived dopaminergic progenitors in Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review protocol