BACKGROUND: Although the benefits of prostate carcinoma screening in reducing mortality rates have not been proven or shown to be cost-effective, screening, particularly using prostate specific antigen (PSA) tests, is widespread. A better understanding of screening behavior, knowledge of prostate carcinoma risk, and attitudes toward screening among men at high risk, such as African-American men, would be valuable. METHODS: A prevalence survey was conducted using 2 samples of African-American men, aged 50-74 years: a clinic sample drawn from all clinics in Central Harlem (n = 404) and a random-digit dial sample from the same geographic region (n = 319). The prevalence of self-reported PSA screening was estimated using a cognitive survey methodology based on the internal consistency of answers to four different questions. Prevalence estimates were adjusted to take into account the high proportion of nontelephone residences. RESULTS: The clinic sample, representing a poorer, more ill population (as determined by MOS Physical Function Scores, was less likely to report PSA screening than the community sample (11.1% in clinic sample vs. 25.5% in community). The prevalence of PSA testing in Central Harlem overall in this age group by using two different techniques was estimated to be 24%. In multiple logistic models, self-reported PSA screening was associated with age, education, favorable attitudes toward screening, and knowing someone who had prostate carcinoma. However, the association between these factors and the likelihood of self-reported PSA screening differed between clinic and community samples. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of self-reported PSA screening in Central Harlem was lower than that reported for other populations. These findings may be useful in the design of health education campaigns and for counseling innercity, low-income African-American patients appropriately about the disease.
BACKGROUND: Although the benefits of prostate carcinoma screening in reducing mortality rates have not been proven or shown to be cost-effective, screening, particularly using prostate specific antigen (PSA) tests, is widespread. A better understanding of screening behavior, knowledge of prostate carcinoma risk, and attitudes toward screening among men at high risk, such as African-American men, would be valuable. METHODS: A prevalence survey was conducted using 2 samples of African-American men, aged 50-74 years: a clinic sample drawn from all clinics in Central Harlem (n = 404) and a random-digit dial sample from the same geographic region (n = 319). The prevalence of self-reported PSA screening was estimated using a cognitive survey methodology based on the internal consistency of answers to four different questions. Prevalence estimates were adjusted to take into account the high proportion of nontelephone residences. RESULTS: The clinic sample, representing a poorer, more ill population (as determined by MOS Physical Function Scores, was less likely to report PSA screening than the community sample (11.1% in clinic sample vs. 25.5% in community). The prevalence of PSA testing in Central Harlem overall in this age group by using two different techniques was estimated to be 24%. In multiple logistic models, self-reported PSA screening was associated with age, education, favorable attitudes toward screening, and knowing someone who had prostate carcinoma. However, the association between these factors and the likelihood of self-reported PSA screening differed between clinic and community samples. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of self-reported PSA screening in Central Harlem was lower than that reported for other populations. These findings may be useful in the design of health education campaigns and for counseling innercity, low-income African-American patients appropriately about the disease.
Authors: Omotola S Ashorobi; Jacqueline Frost; Xuemei Wang; Pamela Roberson; E Lin; Robert J Volk; David S Lopez; Lovell A Jones; Curtis A Pettaway Journal: Am J Mens Health Date: 2016-07-08
Authors: Linda Fleisher; Stacy N Davis; Laura Gross; Loretta Bagden; Debra Zakrzewski; Evelyn González; Venk Kandadai; Cheryl Rusten; Jerilyn Baskett; Elias Obeid; Veda N Giri Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Stephen J Lepore; Randi L Wolf; Charles E Basch; Melissa Godfrey; Emma McGinty; Celia Shmukler; Ralph Ullman; Nigel Thomas; Sally Weinrich Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2012-12
Authors: Motolani E Ogunsanya; Carolyn M Brown; Folakemi T Odedina; Jamie C Barner; Taiwo Adedipe Journal: J Racial Ethn Health Disparities Date: 2016-11-18
Authors: Laura-Mae Baldwin; Sharon A Dobie; Kevin Billingsley; Yong Cai; George E Wright; Jason A Dominitz; William Barlow; Joan L Warren; Stephen H Taplin Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-08-17 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Folakemi T Odedina; Daohai Yu; Titilola O Akinremi; R Renee Reams; Matthew L Freedman; Nagi Kumar Journal: J Immigr Minor Health Date: 2008-12-04
Authors: Evelyn C Y Chan; Sally W Vernon; Frederick T O'Donnell; Chul Ahn; Anthony Greisinger; Donnie W Aga Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: John Pendleton; Christopher Hopkins; Satoshi Anai; Kogenta Nakamura; Myron Chang; Anthony Grissett; Charles J Rosser Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2008 Impact factor: 2.037