↓ Skip to main content

Exploring awareness and help-seeking intentions for testicular symptoms among heterosexual, gay, and bisexual men in Ireland: A qualitative descriptive study

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Nursing Studies, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Exploring awareness and help-seeking intentions for testicular symptoms among heterosexual, gay, and bisexual men in Ireland: A qualitative descriptive study
Published in
International Journal of Nursing Studies, February 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.11.016
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mohamad M. Saab, Margaret Landers, Josephine Hegarty

Abstract

The incidence of malignant and benign testicular disorders among young men is on the rise. Evidence from three reviews suggest that men's knowledge of these disorders is lacking and their help-seeking intention for testicular symptoms is suboptimal. Qualitative studies have addressed men's awareness of testicular cancer, with none exploring their awareness of non-malignant diseases such as epididymitis, testicular torsion, and varicocele and none including sexual minorities. To explore, in-depth, heterosexual, gay, and bisexual men's awareness of testicular disorders and their help-seeking intentions for testicular symptoms in the Irish context. This study used a qualitative descriptive approach. Data were collected via face-to-face individual interviews and focus groups. Participation was sought from a number of community and youth organisations and one university in Southern Ireland. Maximum variation and snowball sampling were used to recruit a heterogeneous sample. A total of 29 men partook in this study. Participants were men, aged between 18 and 50 years, and residents of the Republic of Ireland. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Reflective field notes were taken following each interview. A summary of the interview was shared with selected participants for member-check. Data were analysed and validated by three researchers. Inductive qualitative analysis of manifest content was used. Latent content was captured in the field notes. Data analysis yielded two key themes. The themes that emerged from the interviews were: Awareness of testicular disorders and their screening, and help-seeking intentions for testicular symptoms. Although most participants heard of testicular cancer, most did not know the different aspects of this malignancy including its risk factors, symptoms, treatments, and screening. Several men had a number of misconceptions around testicular disorders which negatively impacted their intentions to seek prompt help. Intentions to delay help-seeking for testicular symptoms were often linked to a number of emotional factors including fear and embarrassment, and social normative factors such as machoism and stoicism. In this study, culture was perceived by some participants as a barrier to awareness and help-seeking. In contrast, many believed that young men, especially those who self-identify as gay, are becoming increasingly interested in their own health. Findings suggest the need to educate young men about testicular disorders and symptoms. This could be achieved through conducting health promotion campaigns that appeal to younger men, drafting national men's health policies, and normalising open discussions about testicular health at a young age.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 96 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 15%
Student > Bachelor 12 13%
Researcher 11 11%
Other 8 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 7%
Other 20 21%
Unknown 24 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 15%
Psychology 12 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 32 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 December 2016.
All research outputs
#14,003,907
of 22,908,162 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nursing Studies
#1,668
of 2,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,984
of 419,929 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nursing Studies
#32
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,908,162 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,379 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.8. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 419,929 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.