Australia is recognised as an international leader in men’s health. However, life expectancy for men is lower than for women, many deaths are preventable, and certain population subgroups experience a higher burden of adverse health outcomes. The National Men’s Health Strategy 2020–2030 (NMHS) calls for a strengthened evidence base to guide future efforts. In response, the Institute for Social Science Research at The University of Queensland was commissioned by the Australian Government to undertake the Gap Analysis of Evidence for Male Health project.
The project focused on three review areas: data review, policy and strategy review, and men’s health interventions review. It also incorporated structured consultations with stakeholders across the sector to assess current gaps and future research priorities.
The data audit identified 108 relevant sources. There was limited coverage of priority populations including male veterans, men in the criminal justice system, and GBTQAI+ men, as well as gaps in specific health conditions. Key recommendations include enhancing longitudinal studies, improving identification of priority groups through surveys and data linkages, and increasing data collection on underrepresented health issues.
The policy review examined 129 national and jurisdictional documents. Mental health was the most frequently addressed issue, while healthy ageing and the needs of male veterans and socioeconomically disadvantaged men were underrepresented. Most actions focused on access to services rather than research investment, and fewer than half included financial commitments. Recommendations include encouraging all jurisdictions to establish a men’s health policy, recognising fathers as a priority population group, and ensuring policies have dedicated funding and evaluation mechanisms.
The review of men’s health interventions identified 289 relevant academic articles since 2010, the majority focused on mental health and GBTIQA+ men. Evidence was sparse for young men, veterans, and culturally and linguistically diverse men, and only a small proportion of interventions were tailored to men’s specific needs. Evaluation quality was generally low, limiting confidence in scalability. Recommendations include establishing a national men’s health research strategy and a network of men’s health researchers, and advocating for targeted calls for men’s health research funding.
Stakeholder consultation supported these findings, reinforcing the need for sector coordination, data linkage, and research translation. There was low awareness and limited use of the NMHS, suggesting a need to improve communication, implementation, and evaluation. These findings offer a roadmap for building a stronger, more coordinated evidence base to improve health outcomes for men and boys in Australia.