A systematic review and metaethnography to identify how effective, cost-effective, accessible and acceptable self-management support interventions are for men with long-term conditions (SELF-MAN)

Author:

Galdas Paul1,Darwin Zoe2,Fell Jennifer1,Kidd Lisa3,Bower Peter4,Blickem Christian5,McPherson Kerri3,Hunt Kate6,Gilbody Simon1,Richardson Gerry7

Affiliation:

1. Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK

2. School of Healthcare, Faculty of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

3. School of Health and Life Sciences/Institute for Applied Health Research, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK

4. National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

5. National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) Greater Manchester, Centre for Primary Care, Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

6. Medical Research Council/Chief Scientist Office Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

7. Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK

Abstract

BackgroundSelf-management support interventions can improve health outcomes, but their impact is limited by the numbers of patients able or willing to access them. Men’s attendance at, and engagement with, self-management support appears suboptimal despite their increased risk of developing serious and disabling long-term conditions (LTCs).ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, accessibility and acceptability of self-management support interventions in men with LTCs.MethodsA quantitative systematic review with meta-analysis and a qualitative review using a metaethnography approach. The findings of the two reviews were integrated in parallel synthesis.Data sourcesIn the quantitative review, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched to identify published reviews of self-management support interventions. Relevant reviews were screened to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of self-management support interventions conducted in men alone, or which analysed the effects of interventions by gender. In the qualitative review, the databases Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, PsycINFO and Social Science Citation Index (July 2013) were searched from inception to July 2013.Review methodsIn the quantitative review, data on relevant outcomes, patient populations, intervention type and study quality were extracted. Quality appraisal was conducted independently by two reviewers using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effects of interventions in male, female and mixed-sex groups. In the metaethnography, study details, participant quotes (first-order constructs) and study authors’ themes/concepts (second-order constructs) were extracted. Quality appraisal was conducted independently by two reviewers using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. Data were synthesised according to a metaethnography approach. Third-order interpretations/constructs were derived from the extracted data and integrated to generate a ‘line-of-argument’ synthesis.ResultsForty RCTs of self-management support interventions in male-only samples, and 20 RCTs where an analysis by gender was reported, were included in the quantitative review. Meta-analysis suggested that interventions including physical activity, education and peer support have a positive impact on quality of life in men, and that men may derive more benefit than women from them, but there is currently insufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions. Thirty-eight qualitative studies relevant to men’s experiences of, and perceptions of, self-management support were included in the qualitative review. The metaethnography identified four concepts: (1) need for purpose; (2) trusted environments; (3) value of peers; and (4) becoming an expert. Findings indicated that men may feel less comfortable engaging in support if it is perceived to be incongruous with valued aspects of masculine identities. Men may find support interventions more attractive when they have a clear purpose, are action-oriented and offer practical strategies that can be integrated into daily life. Support delivered in an environment that offers a sense of shared understanding can be particularly appealing to some men.ConclusionsHealth professionals and those involved in designing interventions may wish to consider whether or not certain components (e.g. physical activity, education, peer support) are particularly effective in men, although more research is needed to fully determine and explore this. Interventions are most likely to be accessible and acceptable to men when working with, not against, valued aspects of masculine identities.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005394.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Funder

Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR) Programme

Publisher

National Institute for Health Research

Subject

General Economics, Econometrics and Finance

Reference284 articles.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3