Data Abstraction and Quality Assessment

Data from the 29 articles were extracted using a standardized template in Covidence. Extracted information included details on the study (e.g., country; setting; sponsorship information); study methods (e.g., study design, population density, analysis used, study setting, study time period); study population (e.g., inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, mean age of sample); measures for both masculinity and mental health outcomes; and a description of analysis and outcomes. Following test abstractions with the first author, one doctoral‐level and one undergraduate research assistant (the second and fourth authors, respectively) abstracted information for all articles separately, and then met to come to consensus. Abstractions were all reviewed by the first author. To assess data quality for quantitative articles, we reviewed articles for missingness/attrition for primary outcomes; bias in measurement; sampling frame (representative or non‐representative); response rate (>30%); and other quality issues, using a standard Covidence template. For qualitative articles, we used the RATS checklist (Equator Network, 2016). Following test assessments with the first author, one doctoral‐level and one undergraduate research assistant completed quality assessments for all articles, which were then reviewed and discussed with the first author. For clarity, we present quantitative and qualitative findings separately in the Results section and discuss their overlap in the Conclusions section.