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

Abstract Background Men face a persistent and preventable health burden, compounded when healthcare encounters are undermined by ineffective communication and lack of trust. Gender-responsive healthcare (GRH) offers a framework for addressing these dynamics, yet little is known about healthcare practitioner (HCP) attitudes towards GRH for men. This study explored familiarity with GRH, and drivers and barriers to training engagement and implementation, across professional groups likely to encounter men in primary care and mental health settings. Methods A cross-sectional mixed-methods survey was administered to 487 Australian HCPs across four professional groups: General Practitioners (GPs), Nurses/Midwives, Psychologists, and Pharmacists. Quantitative items assessed prior training on, and familiarity with, GRH for men. Regression analysis was used to examine variations in these outcomes by professional group. Qualitative items exploring drivers and barriers to engaging with GRH training were analysed using framework analysis. Results Only 14% of HCPs reported receiving relevant training during primary professional education. Low familiarity with GRH for men was reported by over half the sample (58.5%). Psychologists demonstrated significantly higher familiarity with specific gender-responsive approaches, including recognising gender norms (OR = 2.74) and using a strengths-based approach (OR = 4.27), compared to GPs. Five themes were identified spanning individual to macro-structural levels, reflecting both drivers (e.g. lived experience, rewarding clinical encounters, equity-based values) and barriers (e.g. stereotypic assumptions about male patients, safety concerns, systemic under-prioritisation of men’s health) to GRH engagement. Conclusions Despite describing genuine motivation, HCPs reported multilevel barriers to engaging with GRH for men, spanning individual assumptions, professional ambiguity around person-centred care, and structural under-resourcing including short consultation times and financial disincentives. Training programmes for GRH for men already exist; these findings suggest that sustained change is likely to depend on system-level investment in curricula, organisational incentives, and reimbursement structures that support longer, relationally focused consultations.