Australian survey examines barriers to gender-responsive healthcare for men

A mixed-methods survey of 487 Australian healthcare professionals found that only 14% had received training on gender-responsive healthcare for men during their primary professional education, while 58.5% reported low familiarity with the approach. The study, which included general practitioners, nurses and midwives, psychologists and pharmacists, also identified barriers ranging from stereotypic assumptions about male patients to short consultation times and financial disincentives. Because the research was cross-sectional, it describes reported training, attitudes and working conditions rather than establishing their effects on clinical practice or health outcomes.

Researchers collected quantitative data on prior training and familiarity with gender-responsive healthcare, or GRH, for men. They used regression analysis to examine differences between the four professional groups and analysed open-ended responses with framework analysis to identify drivers of and barriers to training engagement and implementation. The sample comprised 487 healthcare professionals likely to encounter men in primary care and mental health settings in Australia. GRH is presented in the study as a framework for addressing the communication and trust problems that can compound men’s health burdens.

Psychologists reported significantly greater familiarity than general practitioners with two specific gender-responsive approaches: recognising gender norms, with an odds ratio of 2.74, and using a strengths-based approach, with an odds ratio of 4.27. The survey did not determine why the professional groups differed, and it did not test whether earlier training directly caused the reported familiarity. More broadly, the findings show limited exposure to relevant education: fewer than one in six respondents said they had received training during their primary professional education, and more than half described their familiarity with GRH for men as low.

The qualitative analysis produced five themes spanning individual, professional and macro-structural levels. Reported drivers included personal lived experience, rewarding clinical encounters and equity-based values. Reported barriers included stereotypic assumptions about men, safety concerns, uncertainty about how gender-responsive healthcare relates to person-centred care, systemic under-prioritisation of men’s health, short consultation times and financial disincentives. These responses indicate that professional interest did not align easily with the time, funding and organisational conditions described by participants. The study documents these barriers but does not measure how frequently they occurred or whether they affected the care delivered to individual patients.

Overall, the survey points to a gap between healthcare professionals’ stated motivation to engage with gender-responsive care and their reported preparedness and working conditions. The authors conclude that sustained change may depend on investment in curricula, organisational incentives and reimbursement structures that support longer, relationally focused consultations. That conclusion is presented as an implication of the findings, not as demonstrated intervention effectiveness. The study’s limitations include its cross-sectional design, reliance on self-reported training and familiarity, and the interpretive nature of the qualitative analysis. It also focuses on an Australian workforce, so its findings do not directly establish how the same barriers apply in other health systems. The research identifies conditions associated with engagement in GRH for men, but further evidence would be needed to determine whether particular training or system changes improve practice or patient outcomes.

Subject of Research: Australian healthcare professionals’ training, familiarity and perceived barriers to gender-responsive healthcare for men

Article Title: Attitudes towards gender-responsive healthcare for men: familiarity, drivers and barriers among Australian healthcare professionals

Article References: Croak, B., Lombardi, L., McGee, M., Wainwright, H., Rogers, B., Wilson, M. J., & Seidler, Z. (2026). Attitudes towards gender-responsive healthcare for men: familiarity, drivers and barriers among Australian healthcare professionals. BMC Health Services Research. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-026-15647-z

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12913-026-15647-z

Keywords: gender-responsive healthcare, men’s health, healthcare professionals, professional education, clinical training, health systems, Australia, survey research, consultation time, implementation barriers, Attitudes, towards