DESIGN: This qualitative study employed an interpretive descriptive approach. Two trained researchers conducted in-depth interviews (IDIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) using a semi-structured topic guide, which was developed based on literature review and behavioural theories. All IDIs and FGDs were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Two researchers analysed the data independently using a thematic approach.
PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Men working in a banking institution in Kuala Lumpur were recruited to the study. They were purposively sampled according to their ethnicity, job position, age and screening status in order to achieve maximal variation.
RESULTS: Eight IDIs and five FGDs were conducted (n=31) and six themes emerged from the analysis. (1) Young men did not consider screening as part of prevention and had low risk perception. (2) The younger generation was more receptive to health screening due to their exposure to health information through the internet. (3) Health screening was not a priority in young men except for those who were married. (4) Young men had limited income and would rather invest in health insurance than screening. (5) Young men tended to follow doctors' advice when it comes to screening and preferred doctors of the same gender and ethnicity. (6) Medical overuse was also raised where young men wanted more screening tests while doctors tended to promote unnecessary screening tests to them.
CONCLUSIONS: This study identified important factors that influenced young men's screening behaviour. Health authorities should address young men's misperceptions, promote the importance of early detection and develop a reasonable health screening strategy for them. Appropriate measures must be put in place to reduce low value screening practices.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review presents current evidence on the barriers and facilitators to engaging men in health screening.
METHODS: We included qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method studies identified through five electronic databases, contact with experts and reference mining. Two researchers selected and appraised the studies independently. Data extraction and synthesis were conducted using the 'best fit' framework synthesis method.
RESULTS: 53 qualitative, 44 quantitative and 6 mixed-method studies were included. Factors influencing health screening uptake in men can be categorized into five domains: individual, social, health system, healthcare professional and screening procedure. The most commonly reported barriers are fear of getting the disease and low risk perception; for facilitators, they are perceived risk and benefits of screening. Male-dominant barriers include heterosexual -self-presentation, avoidance of femininity and lack of time. The partner's role is the most common male-dominant facilitator to screening.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of barriers and facilitators to health screening in men including the male-dominant factors. The findings are particularly useful for clinicians, researchers and policy makers who are developing interventions and policies to increase screening uptake in men.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the utility and usability of ScreenMen.
METHODS: This study used both qualitative and quantitative methods. Healthy men working in a banking institution were recruited to participate in this study. They were purposively sampled according to job position, age, education level, and screening status. Men were asked to use ScreenMen independently while the screen activities were being recorded. Once completed, retrospective think aloud with playback was conducted with men to obtain their feedback. They were asked to answer the System Usability Scale (SUS). Intention to undergo screening pre- and postintervention was also measured. Qualitative data were analyzed using a framework approach followed by thematic analysis. For quantitative data, the mean SUS score was calculated and change in intention to screening was analyzed using McNemar test.
RESULTS: In total, 24 men participated in this study. On the basis of the qualitative data, men found ScreenMen useful as they could learn more about their health risks and screening. They found ScreenMen convenient to use, which might trigger men to undergo screening. In terms of usability, men thought that ScreenMen was user-friendly and easy to understand. The key revision done on utility was the addition of a reminder function, whereas for usability, the revisions done were in terms of attracting and gaining users' trust, improving learnability, and making ScreenMen usable to all types of users. To attract men to use it, ScreenMen was introduced to users in terms of improving health instead of going for screening. Another important revision made was emphasizing the screening tests the users do not need, instead of just informing them about the screening tests they need. A Quick Assessment Mode was also added for users with limited attention span. The quantitative data showed that 8 out of 23 men (35%) planned to attend screening earlier than intended after using the ScreenMen. Furthermore, 4 out of 12 (33%) men who were in the precontemplation stage changed to either contemplation or preparation stage after using ScreenMen with P=.13. In terms of usability, the mean SUS score of 76.4 (SD 7.72) indicated that ScreenMen had good usability.
CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that ScreenMen was acceptable to men in terms of its utility and usability. The preliminary data suggested that ScreenMen might increase men's intention to undergo screening. This paper also presented key lessons learned from the beta testing, which is useful for public health experts and researchers when developing a user-centered mobile Web app.
METHODS: ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 employed established evidence-based review with recommendation (EBRR) methodology to individually evaluate each topic. Stepwise iterative peer review and consensus was performed for each topic. The final document was then collated and includes the results of this work.
RESULTS: ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 includes 10 major content areas and 144 individual topics related to AR. For a substantial proportion of topics included, an aggregate grade of evidence is presented, which is determined by collating the levels of evidence for each available study identified in the literature. For topics in which a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention is considered, a recommendation summary is presented, which considers the aggregate grade of evidence, benefit, harm, and cost.
CONCLUSION: The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update provides a comprehensive evaluation of AR and the currently available evidence. It is this evidence that contributes to our current knowledge base and recommendations for patient evaluation and treatment.