Affiliations 

  • 1 Department of Primary Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
  • 2 Department of Primary Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Electronic address: [email protected]
Am J Prev Med, 2018 Jan;54(1):133-143.
PMID: 29254551 DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2017.08.028

Abstract

CONTEXT: Globally, uptake of health screening in men remains low and the effectiveness of interventions to promote screening uptake in men is not well established. This review aimed to determine the effectiveness of interventions in improving men's uptake of and intention to undergo screening, including interventions using information and communication technology and a male-sensitive approach.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Studies were sourced from five electronic databases (October 2015), experts, and references of included studies. This study included RCTs or cluster RCTs that recruited men and reported uptake of or intention to undergo screening. Two researchers independently performed study selection, appraisal, and data extraction. The interventions were grouped into those that increase uptake and those that promote informed decision making. They were further sub-analyzed according to types of intervention, male-sensitive, and web- and video-based interventions. The analysis was completed in December 2016.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: This review included 58 studies. Most studies were on prostate cancer (k=31) and HIV (k=11) screening. Most of the studies had low methodologic quality (79.3%) and after excluding them from the analysis, one study found that educational intervention (which was also male-sensitive) was effective in improving men's intention to screen (risk ratio=1.36, 95% CI=1.23, 1.50, k=1) and partner educational intervention increased men's screening uptake (risk ratio=1.77, 95% CI=1.48, 2.12, k=1). Video-based educational interventions reduced prostate cancer screening uptake (risk ratio=0.89, 95%CI=0.80, 0.99, k=1) but web-based interventions did not change men's screening intention or uptake.

CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the need to conduct more robust studies to provide conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of different interventions to improve men's screening behavior.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.