PURPOSE/ OBJECTIVES: To develop and test the Cues to Participation in Prostate Cancer Screening Theory, which proposes that exposure to information from certain sources cues or triggers screening. DESIGN: Descriptive correlational. SETTING: 11 counties of a southeastern state. SAMPLE: Convenience sample of 1,867 men at risk for prostate cancer (72% African American; 28% Caucasian). METHODS: Recent exposure to prostate cancer information was measured. Men were offered free screening by prostate specific antigen (PSA) and digital rectal exam (DRE). MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Demographic variables (race, age, education, income, and marital status), exposure (electronic media, print media, healthcare provider recommendation, and interpersonal interactions), and screening as measured by PSA and DRE. FINDINGS: Several major propositions of the Cues to Participation Theory were supported. General exposure to prostate cancer information significantly predicted screening participation. Hearing about prostate cancer from a healthcare provider was the best predictor of screening. CONCLUSIONS: Men's demographic characteristics should be considered when providing information about prostate cancer. Hearing about prostate cancer from family and friends was not significantly related to screening behavior. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: The importance of recommendations for prostate cancer screening is underscored.
PURPOSE/ OBJECTIVES: To develop and test the Cues to Participation in Prostate Cancer Screening Theory, which proposes that exposure to information from certain sources cues or triggers screening. DESIGN: Descriptive correlational. SETTING: 11 counties of a southeastern state. SAMPLE: Convenience sample of 1,867 men at risk for prostate cancer (72% African American; 28% Caucasian). METHODS: Recent exposure to prostate cancer information was measured. Men were offered free screening by prostate specific antigen (PSA) and digital rectal exam (DRE). MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Demographic variables (race, age, education, income, and marital status), exposure (electronic media, print media, healthcare provider recommendation, and interpersonal interactions), and screening as measured by PSA and DRE. FINDINGS: Several major propositions of the Cues to Participation Theory were supported. General exposure to prostate cancer information significantly predicted screening participation. Hearing about prostate cancer from a healthcare provider was the best predictor of screening. CONCLUSIONS:Men's demographic characteristics should be considered when providing information about prostate cancer. Hearing about prostate cancer from family and friends was not significantly related to screening behavior. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: The importance of recommendations for prostate cancer screening is underscored.
Authors: V Diane Woods; Susanne B Montgomery; R Patti Herring; Robert W Gardner; Daniel Stokols Journal: J Natl Med Assoc Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 1.798
Authors: Marvella E Ford; Sally W Vernon; Suzanne L Havstad; Shirley A Thomas; Shawna D Davis Journal: J Natl Med Assoc Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 1.798
Authors: John S Luque; Brian M Rivers; Maisha Kambon; Ronald Brookins; B Lee Green; Cathy D Meade Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 2.037
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: 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: 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
Authors: Motolani E Ogunsanya; Carolyn M Brown; Folakemi T Odedina; Jamie C Barner; Brittany Corbell; Taiwo B Adedipe Journal: Am J Mens Health Date: 2016-07-08