Summary Men with the poorest health outcomes are, paradoxically, the least likely to access health services or to engage with health promotion interventions. This has focused attention on developing gender-sensitive and strengths-based approaches to engage so-called ‘hard-to-reach’ men. Men’s Sheds (‘Sheds’) are recognized as an alternative space in which to engage older and more marginalized groups of men in health. The aim of this study was to establish key principles that could align the ethos of Sheds with a national health promotion initiative (‘Sheds for Life’; SFL) in terms of methods of engagement, programme content and models of delivery. Qualitative methods incorporating semi-structured interviews, focus groups and observations were conducted with men in Sheds (‘Shedders’; n = 38), oversight/advisory groups (n = 11) and partner organizations (n = 8). The principles of grounded theory were used to inform data collection and analysis. Findings revealed a range of mediating factors in terms of how Shedders engage with or ‘do’ health that were grounded in a recognition of the health-enhancing ‘essence’ of Sheds and in ‘making men’s health men’s business’. Key learnings arising from the process of engaging with Shedders included the importance of investing in relationships, establishing credibility and tailoring SFL programme content and delivery to individual Sheds. In terms of conceptualizing SFL, attention was drawn to the need for a coherent and formalized SFL strategy and ‘rules of engagement’, as well as a robust and sustainable system for implementation. This is the first study that informs a more systematic and formal approach to health promotion in Sheds.

Findings should be interpreted in light of varying risks of bias. Suggestions are made for future research and practice.

Founded in 2005, Globalization and Health was the first open access global health journal. The journal has since expanded the field, and its influence, with the number of downloaded papers rising 17-fold, to over 4 million. Its ground-breaking papers, leading authors -including a Nobel Prize winner-and an impact factor of 2.25 place it among the top global health journals in the world. To mark the ten years since the journal's founding, we, members of the current editorial board, undertook a review of the journal's progress over the last decade. Through the application of an inductive thematic analysis, we systematically identified themes of research published in the journal from 2005 to 2014. We identify key areas the journal has promoted and consider these in the context of an existing framework, identify current gaps in global health research and highlight areas we, as a journal, would like to see strengthened.

Key Points The aim of the study was to explore partners’ experiences of cervical cancer and perspectives on the CervicalCheck controversy. Seven male partners of women who were diagnosed with cervical cancer following a false‐negative screening result were interviewed between May and July 2020. Thematic analysis was conducted on the data. Three superordinate themes were identified; the adverse impact of a cervical cancer diagnosis on partners; the unsatisfactory treatment of partners throughout the trajectory of cervical cancer diagnosis and treatment, and partners’ attitudes surrounding the CervicalCheck controversy. The findings highlight the unique challenges experienced by the partners of women diagnosed with cervical cancer and the impact of the CervicalCheck screening failure on partners. The findings also highlight the need for appropriate structures to be established within Ireland's health service to better support the informational and psychological needs of partners of women with cervical cancer.