Engagement of fathers in family health services confers benefits for the health and wellbeing of the whole family. The childbirth continuum is traditionally considered a feminine event, however, commensurate with the changing paradigm of gender equity in family healthcare worldwide, the role of fathers is in transformation. The aim of the study is to explore father's perceptions and experiences of healthcare engagement during pregnancy and early infant care. Qualitative free-text questions were embedded in a large multi-country, cross-sectional survey, to explored fathers' attendance, participation, and experience of health care during appointments with their pregnant partner and/or baby. Expectant and new fathers were recruited through Prolific®, an international paid online survey platform. Qualitative responses (n=889) were provided by fathers from 28 countries, with experiences of a range of contexts and models of care; 46.8% of whose partners were pregnant and 53.2% had given birth since 2020. The findings suggest that although most fathers wanted to attend and participate in maternity and early parenting-related healthcare, multiple barriers were identified at the individual father, organisational context, and societal levels. Fathers reported negative social factors such as gender bias and restrictive gender norms as barriers to their healthcare engagement. In contrast, factors that enabled fathers to overcome barriers included the fathers' feelings of confidence in their partner's autonomy and decision-making skills, trusted professional relationships with clinicians, and clinicians with good interpersonal skills. Multiple barriers restrict the participation of fathers in healthcare for childbearing and early parenting. Knowledge of these barriers can inform healthcare redesign to include more successful engagement strategies for fathers, to benefit fathers, mothers, and infants alike. Health professionals consulting with the mother, father and infant triad are ideally placed to address the healthcare needs of both parents. Early engagement of fathers in family health care by use of inclusive interpersonal skills and the development of a trusted relationship has potential to improve paternal mental health, and may be associated with benefits for the health, wellbeing and safety of the whole family.

Background: Active Support, now widely adopted by disability support organizations, is difficult to implement. The study aim was to identify the factors associated with good Active Support.Methods: Data on service user and staff characteristics, quality of Active Support and practice leadership were collected from a sample of services from 14 organizations annually for between 2 and 7 years, using questionnaires, structured observations and interviews. Data were analysed using multilevel modelling (MLM).Results: Predictors of good Active Support were adaptive behaviour, practice leadership, Active Support training, and time since its implementation. Heterogeneity, having more than six people in a service and larger organizations were associated with lower quality of Active Support.Conclusions: In order to ensure that Active Support is consistently implemented, and thus, quality of life outcomes improved, organizations need to pay attention to both service design and support for staff through training and practice leadership.

Background: The mechanisms typically used to fund health promotion in communities, either as part of an effort to scale-up programs or to support the design of local activities, often pay insufficient attention to the foundational means of enhancing well-being. Only recently have researchers begun to critically ‘unpack’ how funding processes connect with and activate local community capacities. Methods: We conducted a thematic analysis of 33 interviews with policy and program administrators in public health and local community workers and volunteers. We invited them to expound on their understandings of resources - specifically, what needs to be in place to make funded programs successful and/or what do communities draw on to make funded programs effective. Results: Policy and program administrators reflected mostly on the importance of traditional resources, such as adequate funding and staffing. Community-based participants often went further to describe psychological and sociological resources – the “soft infrastructure” which included trust and hope. Both groups emphasised the importance of building networks and relationships at multiple levels. Community workers also provided examples of how resources grow and improve in value in combination with other processes or through pathways of resource use or resource distribution. So, resources like information/knowledge are made more valuable when relayed locally. Physical amenities (e.g., meeting spaces, kitchens) have an instrumental role, but also act powerfully as a symbolic resource for identity. Participants reported that funding processes can damage the resources required for community health improvement. Funding instability undermines capacity. The ongoing threat of funding removal was described by one administrator as community “bullying”. Conclusions: Processes of health promotion funding, and even standard processes of program scale-up and readiness assessment, risk underestimating the range of resources that are fundamental for community health improvement, particularly among disadvantaged communities. Funders should design ways to resource communities so that there is constant attention to and coaching of critically important diverse processes of resource growth, independent of program-specific funds.

Public health agencies tasked with improving the health of communities are poorly supported by many ‘business-as-usual’ funding practices. It is commonplace to call for more funding for health promotion, but additional funding could do more harm than good if, at the same time, we do not critically examine the micro-processes that lead to health enablement – micro-processes that are instigated or amplified by funding. We are currently engaged in a university-and-policy research partnership to identify how funding mechanisms may better serve the practice of community-based health promotion. We propose three primary considerations to inform the way funds are used to enable community-based health promotion. The first is a broader understanding and legitimising of the ‘soft infrastructure’ or resources required to enhance a community’s capacity for change. The second is recognition of social relationships as key to increasing the availability and management of resources within communities. The third consideration understands communities to be complex systems and argues that funding models are needed to support the dynamic evolution of these systems. By neglecting these considerations, current funding practices may inadvertently privilege communities with pre-existing capacity for change, potentially perpetuating inequalities in health. To begin to address these issues, aspects of funding processes (e.g., stability, guidance, evaluation, and feedback requirements) could be designed to better support the flourishing of community practice. Above all, funders must recognise that they are actors in the health system and they, like other actors, should be reflexive and accountable for their actions.

A number of theoretical approaches suggest that gender inequity may give rise to health risks for men. This study undertook a multilevel analysis to ascertain if state-level measures of gender inequity are predictors of men's mortality in the United States. Data for the analysis were taken primarily from the National Longitudinal Mortality Study, which is based on a random sample of the non-institutionalised population. The full data set included 174,703 individuals nested within 50 states and had a six-year follow-up for mortality. Gender inequity was measured by nine variables: higher education, reproductive rights, abortion provider access, elected office, management, business ownership, labour force participation, earnings and relative poverty. Covariates at the individual level were age, income, education, race/ethnicity, marital status and employment status. Covariates at the state level were income inequality and per capita gross domestic product. The results of logistic multilevel modelling showed a number of measures of state-level gender inequity were significantly associated with men's mortality. In all of these cases greater gender inequity was associated with an increased mortality risk. In fully adjusted models for all-age adult men the elected office (OR 1.05 95% CI 1.01-1.09), business ownership (OR 1.04 95% CI 1.01-1.08), earnings (OR 1.04 95% CI 1.01-1.08) and relative poverty (OR 1.07 95% CI 1.03-1.10) measures all showed statistically significant effects for each 1 standard deviation increase in the gender inequity z-score. Similar effects were seen for working-age men. In older men (65+ years) only the earnings and relative poverty measures were statistically significant. This study provides evidence that gender inequity may increase men's health risks. The effect sizes while small are large enough across the range of gender inequity identified to have important population health implications.