4.4 Article

A systematic review of the factors associated with delays in medical and psychological help-seeking among men

Journal

HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW
Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages 264-276

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17437199.2013.840954

Keywords

help-seeking; men; barriers; systematic review; service utilisation; delay

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite a growing literature on the factors associated with men's low rates of medical and psychological help-seeking, a systematic review of these is missing. Such an overview can help to inform health psychologists of the barriers to the performance of adaptive health behaviours, such as prompt help-seeking, and could inform theoretical advancements and the development of targeted interventions to facilitate prompt help-seeking among men. We systematically reviewed quantitative and qualitative empirical papers on factors associated with delays in men's medical and psychological help-seeking. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed, and we used the databases PsycINFO, Medline, Embase and PsycARTICLES (with keywords: men/male*/gender*, help*/seek* and health*/service*/utili*[sation]) for papers in English. 41 citations (amounting to 21,787 participants aged 15-80+) met the inclusion criteria. Approximately half of these used qualitative methodologies (i.e., semi-structured interviews and focus groups), while half used quantitative methodologies (i.e., questionnaires). We identify a number of recurring cognitive, emotional, health-service related and socio-demographic help-seeking factors/predictors from the 41 papers. Of these, the most prominent barriers to help-seeking were disinclination to express emotions/concerns about health, embarrassment, anxiety and fear, and poor communication with health-care professionals.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available