Oral Presentation (max 20 mins including Q&A) National Men's Health Gathering 2025

What do we know about men's preferences for, experiences of, and outcomes from using psychotherapeutic e-mental health programs? Findings from a linked meta-synthesis and meta-analysis of the literature (128918)

Melissa J Opozda 1 , Melissa Oxlad 2 3 , Himanshu Gupta 1 , James Smith 1 4 5 , Samuel Ziesing 6 , Murray Nankivell 7 , Gary Wittert 2
  1. Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Casuarina
  2. Freemasons Centre for Male Health and Wellbeing, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide
  3. School of Psychology, University of Adelaide, Adelaide
  4. Flinders Institute for Mental Health and Wellbeing, College of Education, Psychology, and Social Work, Flinders University, Adelaide
  5. School of Social Work, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA
  6. Health Policy Centre, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide
  7. Military and Emergency Services Health Australia, The Hospital Research Foundation Group, Glenside

Background: In Australia, less than half of all men who experience a mental health difficulty access any mental health care from a healthcare professional. Online mental health (eMH) programs have received attention for their potential to provide mental health care to men in a format that avoids or reduces common barriers to care for men as well as aligning with men’s preferences for mental health care (e.g., desire for privacy, self-management). However, little is known about eMH for men, including the efficacy of these programs and factors that may promote their engagement or attrition in this population.

Methods: We carried out systematic searches in six research databases (2000-2020) to identify relevant studies with extractable data from men/males aged 18+ years, and conducted (1) a narrative review and meta-analysis of 7 papers that presented quantitative trial data on the effects of men’s use of eMH; and (2) a meta-synthesis of 8 papers that reported qualitative data on men’s experiences of using and preferences for eMH.

Results: In the meta-analysis, all three randomised controlled trials reported no post-trial difference in men’s depression symptoms between intervention and control participants. All four treatment studies presenting pre-post data reported significant post-intervention improvements in depression or anxiety symptoms; this was supported by our meta-analysis, which found a medium, positive, pre-post effect on depression symptoms. In the meta-synthesis, we generated three findings: (1) Facilitators of men's eMH use included finding apps and technology motivating and convenient, support and encouragement from others, and interventions allowing men to take action and gain control; (2) Barriers to men's eMH use included lack of time, predicted or experienced lack of benefit from use, and technical difficulties; (3) What men want in eMH: personalised, tailored interventions that are easy to use, with information presented in different formats, psychoeducation, exercises, self-monitoring, and the option of clinician involvement.

Conclusion: There is urgent need for the co-design, dissemination, and evaluation of eMH designed to suit the preferences, needs, and circumstances of diverse populations of men.