![]()
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Men’s health and the health of the
nation
Lannes Johnson, Peter Huggard, Felicity Goodyear-Smith
Why is health, and men’s health, so important?A person’s health is a foundation which enables or
constrains his or her lifestyle, social, education, or employment choices. A
decline in individuals’ health has significant ramifications for their
employment status and participation in the workforce. Furthermore the idea of
health as the foundation of individual wellbeing extends to the health of a
nation.
Health is not simply a by-product of economic development,
but is a substantial driver of economic development as well. The health of the
population affects a country’s productivity, labour supply, education
levels, and capital formation. Healthy people learn better, live
longer—and work, earn, and save more.1
The increasing cost of health care, fuelled by new
technologies and an ageing population, itself places a substantial economic
burden. This highlights the importance of improving the overall health status of
the population rather than simply extending the average life expectancy of the
population—adding life to years, rather than years to life. If health is
important then, what is it about men’s health that is worthy of
attention?
In New Zealand (NZ), men comprise 49% of the population and
52% of the labour force.1 Building on the above
arguments, the health of the male population is a substantial contributor to the
health of the nation. However men’s health per se has received
relatively little attention. While in some instances male subjects may have been
assumed to be ‘generic’ for human beings, there has been little
research specifically on the health of men.2
The United States (US) National Library of Medicine's
controlled vocabulary MeSH (Medical Subject Heading) terms used for indexing
articles for MEDLINE/PubMed has included the term “women’s
health” (the concept covering the physical and mental conditions of women)
since 1991. The equivalent term “men’s health” was only
introduced in 2008.
Moreover, a Medline search from 1980 to 1999 found 3667
articles using the keywords ‘women’s health’, compared to 89
using the keywords ‘men’s
health’.2 A similar search in 2008
yielded 18,249 references for women’s health compared with 442 for
men’s health.
This does not mean that men are healthier than women and
hence require less attention. In fact, the health status of men appears markedly
poorer and their utilisation of health services is lower than that of
women’s. Without devaluing the importance of women’s health, this
raises the issue that if greater health equality were to be achieved between the
sexes, the impact on NZ’s economic and social wellbeing could be
significant.
The importance of men’s health is not simply a
utilitarian matter of the greater good in relation to the economic health of the
country. If health inequalities between social and occupational classes or
ethnic groups are considered to be a major issue of equity—or intrinsic
fairness—then the poorer health status of men poses a similar
challenge.3 It is difficult to diminish the
importance of men’s health on the basis of either riskier/unhealthy
behaviours, or as a function of occupational roles, when such issues are seen as
being important factors to be addressed when confronting other forms of health
inequality.
Although addressing inequalities in health in NZ is a key
focus of health strategy and policy,4
men’s health does not specifically feature in this regard. Rather, the
focus is more on addressing inequalities patterned by ethnicity and deprivation,
and issues of men’s health within these groups appears at best in the
margins.
Health status of men and womenIn most modern societies, women tend to live longer than
men. This has often been taken as a given and a reflection of improvements in
health services for women over the last century, particularly maternity care,
together with the generally higher exposure of men to occupational or
environmental hazards. Yet an examination of data on the status of men’s
health suggests that there are many issues specific to men that should
justifiably concern health planners and policymakers, and for which a systemic
or societal response may be required.
In developed countries, the evidence points to a substantial
health inequality between men and women.5 A
study of 17 European countries found men under 75 years have almost twice the
number of deaths as women in the same age group in most disease states, with the
exception of diseases of the musculoskeletal system, skin, and connective
tissue.6
Another study which analysed the World Health Organization
Statistical Information Services Mortality Database for patterns of premature
death in men and women aged 15–44 years across 44 countries found that
more men than women died prematurely in all these countries, and in many cases,
the causes of early deaths were avoidable.7
The study focused on six potentially avoidable causes of
death - accidents, suicide, malignant neoplasms, diseases of the circulatory
system, homicide and chronic liver disease and cirrhosis. It found that among
men a median of 7.4% of all deaths from all causes in the age group 15–44
year olds, whereas the corresponding figure for women was
3.1%.8
The international literature has identified that men tend to
have higher mortality rates, but that women tend to have higher morbidity rates,
especially at advanced age.3 However the
reduced quantity of life on the part of men does not appear to be offset by the
reduced quality of life on the part of women. Rather, the emerging international
literature on quality-adjusted life expectancy and disability adjusted life
expectancy in developed countries indicates a persisting inequality of poorer
lifetime health outcomes among men compared to women in the same
community.3
This pattern of inequality is reflected in NZ data. Although
life expectancy has increased over the past half-century, women have
consistently lived longer than men. Since the 1970s there has been a steady
narrowing of the life expectancy gap between men and women, from 6.5 years in
1975–77, to 4.8 years in
2000–2002.9 In 2002–2004 the gap
was still 4.3 years, with the average life expectancy at birth of 77 years for
males and 81.3 years for females.10
The Decades of Disparity report focused on widening
inequality between ethnic groups over the periods 1980–84 to
1996–99.11 Yet clear patterns of gender
inequality also emerged, with life expectancy at birth showing lower life
expectancy for males compared to females. More startling was that life
expectancy for males in each of the three ethnic groups (Māori, Pacific,
and non-Māori/non-Pacific) in the 1996–99 period was actually lower
than life expectancy for females in each ethnic group in 1980–84,
15–20 years earlier.11
This difference in life expectancy, patterned by gender, is
reflected in NZ mortality data for major causes of death. These data indicate
that males are more likely than females to die of most major causes, including
coronary heart disease, cancer (all types), transport accidents, and intentional
self-harm. Eighty-four percent of all fatal accidents are male, and males are
more likely to die from injury than females at all
ages.12 Almost 100% of occupational deaths are
male.2
In 2002–2004 men were 3.1 times more likely to commit
suicide than females, and this rate was unchanged from
2001–2003.13 Females are more likely than
males to die of hypertensive disease and forms of heart disease other than
coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, pneumonia and influenza, and
falls.14
Health service utilisationThe literature also points to men experiencing barriers to
service, either as a result of apparent reluctance, or potential systemic
barriers. US research has shown men with health problems are more likely than
women to have had no recent contact with a doctor, regardless of income or
ethnicity. United Kingdom (UK) data indicate that men tend to visit their
general practitioner (GP) later in the course of a condition than women, a
problem that is compounded by social
inequalities.15
A similar picture is evident in NZ. The 2002/03 NZ Health
Survey found that GP utilisation in past 12 months was lower among men (75.7%)
than women (85.5%).10 This could suggest men
are generally healthier and have less need of seeing a GP. However, there were
no conclusive findings in the survey to support this contention.
In terms of prevalence of most chronic diseases, apart from
osteoporosis (higher among women), no significant differences emerged. In risk
and protective factors, men were more physically active, but consumed fewer
fruit and vegetables than women and there were no significant differences in
obesity levels. Alcohol and marijuana consumption was higher among males than
females, but there was no significant difference in tobacco
smoking.10
However, the data also indicate that a blanket category of
men obscures important differences between ethnic and socioeconomic groups:
Māori and Asian males tend to access GPs less frequently than
European/Other, and males in the most deprived quintile are more likely to
report needing to see a GP but do not do so, than those in the least deprived
quintile.16
The evidence suggests that men do care about health issues,
but often find it difficult to engage with health services. This may be for a
range of reasons, including:
An
analysis of the way in which men see their place in their community and in their
networks found that norms and values with which men associate their masculinity,
such as self-sufficiency and self-control, may lead to difficulties in seeking
out health care.22 This may be due to the
perceived risk involved in discovering other’s reactions, leading to a
potential threat to their identity as men.
Emergence of an international men’s health movementAgainst a backdrop of a growing awareness of particular
issues relating to men’s health is an emerging international men’s
health movement.5 This is evidenced by
“men’s health” becoming an indexed MeSH term in 2008. Although
the field remains relatively small, notable advances are occurring in Europe,
UK, US, and Australia.
Momentum has been generated and accelerated by the
establishment of men’s health advocacy organisations in many countries,
such as the Men’s Health Forum in the England and Wales (www.menshealthforum.org.uk), and
the Men’s Health Information and Resource Centre in Australia. Such
organisations have acted as focal points for national and local activity,
developing and publicising initiatives, acting as clearinghouses for resources,
and providing health and policy advocacy.23
Conferences on men’s health have become regular events
in many Western countries, providing opportunities to showcase initiatives and
advocate for health planning and policy solutions. In 2006, Age Concern
organised men’s health evenings in several localities in NZ as part of
international men’s health week.
Evidence of benefits of men’s health awareness activitiesThe evidence base of the benefits of men’s health
awareness programmes is sparse, reflecting its relatively recent emergence as a
field of activity. However, there are some known benefits of activities that are
targeted at men’s health. No single programme will cater for the needs of
men across all ethnic or social groupings. Rather, programmes need to be
developed according to the particular ethnic, social, or geographical
circumstances within which men live.
There is a paucity of evaluation evidence of events such as
‘health weeks’, and none that would signal their health benefits.
However such events cannot be evaluated merely in terms of their possible health
benefits, which are too difficult to disentangle from the effects of any number
of other policy or service interventions.
It is more appropriate to assess the impact on their more
immediate aims of motivating action and raising awareness. A recent such event
was attended by 350 men.24 Participants
indicated that key requirements for ongoing men’s health care are that men
want facts to be presented without fuss and provided with a simple pathway for
them to follow for ongoing health care.
Other interventions shown to contribute to an improvement in
men’s engagement in health services include men’s health clinics and
special centres,19,25,26 and workplace
interventions such as prostrate health awareness, nutritional knowledge, and
diabetes.27–29
Primary health careThe place of primary health care, as the delivery point for
men’s health initiatives, has often emerged in the literature. Once
awareness of men’s health issues is raised, the success of such
initiatives lies with men to consult with their GPs. However, as noted in an
Australian study, primary care is not always equipped to provide effective
health promotion activities in the course of GP or nurse
consultations.17 Adequate training and
resources may be needed for primary care to be effective in this
role.18,20
Possible approaches include:
Personal
health care approaches include:
The
appeal to many men of a ‘warrant of fitness’ analogy for accessing
health services to receive a health check, has previously been
reported.30
These are ways of ensuring a male orientation in providing
primary health care services for the identification of health risk. Many men
have idiosyncratic issues about seeing their GP (or even enrolling with a GP),
recognising their own health problems or risk of problems, and traditionally
have a much lower number of contacts with GPs than NZ females. Additionally,
there are ethnic differences in access to primary care that need to be
addressed.
The place of screening programmes in primary health care is
controversial. Some of this controversy is driven by confusion around
terminology. Case finding, which is germane to general practice and
involves identifying disease or risk of disease in individuals or families, is
an activity that GPs manage every day.
Population health screening, which is germane to
public health and the new area of NZ Primary health Organisations’ (PHOs)
concern, population health, is when a particular disease or risk of disease is
identified in sub-set(s) of the total population. For example when prostate
cancer risk is identified by a GP (based on history, blood tests, and physical
examination) this could be called “screening” the practice male
population, but it is not “population screening”; rather, it is
case-finding within a practice. In population screening
for a whole population, the subset would be based on gender and age
alone, and all would receive a screening test with no prior health consultation
or examination.
The “case finding” approach applied to a
personal health evaluation, particularly when recorded electronically, means
that GPs and practice nurses use evidence-based guidelines to identify health
risks in a population subgroup. This approach can be targeted, and based on age
groups appropriate for the health risk being surveyed.
ConclusionOnly a paucity of interventions have been comprehensively
monitored and evaluated, and which in turn have shown clear beneficial impact on
men’s health. However there is potential for men’s health awareness
activities to catalyse interest in health and to seek advice or support. Three
possible benefits of men’s health activities are: raised awareness of
health issues, connecting men with health or other support networks, and some
degree of behaviour change.31
In his inaugural address at Leeds Metropolitan University
upon taking up the first Chair in Men’s Health, Professor Alan White
described his perspective on the current state of knowledge of men’s
health.5 While he described men’s health
as being problematic, the evidence base of knowledge as being incomplete, and
our understanding of the theoretical issues as being unclear, he also portrayed
changes and new approaches to care that are encouraging.
There is increasing academic activity around improved
understanding of the important issues of men’s health and clinical
interventions, as well as a greater acknowledgement that men’s health may
be a specialised area of clinical practice. His view of a way forward includes a
synthesis of clinical practice and research with sociological investigation into
understanding men’s health beliefs and behaviours. This can guide the
development of health policy to reduce gender inequities, as well as informing
education programmes for health professionals and for men.
Competing interests: None known.
Author information: Lannes Johnson, Chief
Medical Advisor, HealthWest PHO, Waitakere City; Peter Huggard, Senior Lecturer,
Department of General Practice and Primary Health Care, School of Population
Health, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, The University of Auckland;
Felicity Goodyear-Smith, Associate Professor, Department of General Practice and
Primary Health Care, School of Population Health, Faculty of Medical and Health
Sciences, The University of Auckland, Auckland
Acknowledgements: We thank Dr Adrian Field
and Paul Stephenson (contributing authors to the report Improving
men’s health in New Zealand31) and
Hon Pete Hodgson (Minister of Health at the time of the research) for support
and encouragement.
Correspondence: Dr Lannes Johnson, PO Box
9, Greenhithe, Auckland 0756, New Zealand. Email: lannes@healthwest.co.nz
References:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Current
issue | Search journal |
Archived issues | Classifieds
| Hotline (free ads) Subscribe | Contribute | Advertise | Contact Us | Copyright | Other Journals |