Men's health promotion in waiting rooms: an observational study

Abstract

Thesis Statement Men experience poorer health outcomes than females and gender specific targeted health promotion needs to adequately address this gender bias. Methodology This prospective observational study audited all printed health promotional materials in all health facility waiting rooms within a defined geographic region. A total of 24 sites were surveyed which included general practice centres, community health centres and hospitals. The surveyed health literature included posters, brochures, and booklets. Results There were 1143 health materials audited across the sites. Of these, 3.15% (n = 36) were male-specific literature, 15.31% (n = 175) were female specific health literature and 81.54% (n = 932) were gender neutral. Literature which had a gendered focus was overwhelmingly female to male with a ratio of approximately 5:1. Conclusions and Implications This research highlighted that despite the known outcomes of lower male life expectancy and higher burden of disease, male specific literature is significantly under-represented within health facility waiting spaces. There remains potential for health clinicians to provide targeted male health education and thereby improve male health literacy. Key messages Men's health both within Australia and globally remains under-represented despite lower health expectancy and higher burden of disease. Health facilities ought to actively control the health promotion messaging to vulnerable population groups.

Do health service waiting areas contribute to the health literacy of consumers? A scoping review

“…Nine articles assessed and/or described the availability of health resources in waiting areas ( Gignon et al , 2012 ; Anon, 2014b ; Keyworth et al , 2015 ; Protheroe et al , 2015 ; El-Haddad et al , 2016 ; Rodger et al , 2017 ; Maskell et al , 2018 ; McDonald et al , 2020 ; Whitehead et al , 2020 ). A variety of assessments were conducted on available items, such as: numerical counts of available resources ( Anon, 2014b ; Keyworth et al , 2015 ; Protheroe et al , 2015 ; El-Haddad et al , 2016 ; Maskell et al , 2018 ; McDonald et al , 2020 ; Whitehead et al , 2020 ), readability of information ( Protheroe et al , 2015 ; El-Haddad et al , 2016 ), categorization of the content or health topics ( Gignon et al , 2012 ; Anon, 2014b ; Protheroe et al , 2015 ; El-Haddad et al , 2016 ; Maskell et al , 2018 ; McDonald et al , 2020 ; Whitehead et al , 2020 ), accessibility ( Maskell et al , 2018 ) and reliability or quality of information ( Anon, 2014b ; Keyworth et al , 2015 ). To count or describe what was available in waiting areas, researchers used methods such as direct observation ( Keyworth et al , 2015 ; Rodger et al , 2017 ; McDonald et al , 2020 ), audit ( Gignon et al , 2012 ; Anon, 2014b ; Protheroe et al , 2015 ; El-Haddad et al , 2016 ; Maskell et al , 2018 ; Whitehead et al , 2020 ) and/or content analysis ( Keyworth et al , 2015 ;…”

“…A variety of assessments were conducted on available items, such as: numerical counts of available resources ( Anon, 2014b ; Keyworth et al , 2015 ; Protheroe et al , 2015 ; El-Haddad et al , 2016 ; Maskell et al , 2018 ; McDonald et al , 2020 ; Whitehead et al , 2020 ), readability of information ( Protheroe et al , 2015 ; El-Haddad et al , 2016 ), categorization of the content or health topics ( Gignon et al , 2012 ; Anon, 2014b ; Protheroe et al , 2015 ; El-Haddad et al , 2016 ; Maskell et al , 2018 ; McDonald et al , 2020 ; Whitehead et al , 2020 ), accessibility ( Maskell et al , 2018 ) and reliability or quality of information ( Anon, 2014b ; Keyworth et al , 2015 ). To count or describe what was available in waiting areas, researchers used methods such as direct observation ( Keyworth et al , 2015 ; Rodger et al , 2017 ; McDonald et al , 2020 ), audit ( Gignon et al , 2012 ; Anon, 2014b ; Protheroe et al , 2015 ; El-Haddad et al , 2016 ; Maskell et al , 2018 ; Whitehead et al , 2020 ) and/or content analysis ( Keyworth et al , 2015 ; Protheroe et al , 2015 ; El-Haddad et al , 2016 ). The range of available resources identified in a single waiting area varied considerably from none ( Keyworth et al , 2015 ) to 72 items ( Maskell et al , 2018 ).…”

“…The range of available resources identified in a single waiting area varied considerably from none ( Keyworth et al , 2015 ) to 72 items ( Maskell et al , 2018 ). Available resource types were posters ( Gignon et al , 2012 ; Keyworth et al , 2015 ; Rodger et al , 2017 ; Maskell et al , 2018 ; McDonald et al , 2020 ; Whitehead et al , 2020 ), brochures ( Gignon et al , 2012 ; Anon, 2014b ; Rodger et al , 2017 ; McDonald et al , 2020 ; Whitehead et al , 2020 ), flyers/handouts ( Keyworth et al , 2015 ; Maskell et al , 2018 ; McDonald et al , 2020 ), booklets ( Whitehead et al , 2020 ) and signs ( McDonald et al , 2020 ). The majority of articles reported on primary care settings (mostly general practice clinics, n = 5) ( Gignon et al , 2012 ; Anon, 2014b ; Protheroe et al , 2015 ; El-Haddad et al , 2016 ; Maskell et al , 2018 ), while the remainder were hospital outpatient services ( n = 2) ( Rodger et al , 2017 ; McDonald et al , 2020 ) and mixed settings ( n = 2) ( Keyworth et al , 2015 ; Whitehead et al , 2020 ).…”