PURPOSE: To assess the comprehension of common medical terms used in prostate cancer in patient education materials to obtain informed consent, and to measure outcomes after prostate cancer treatment. We address this issue among underserved, African-American men because of the increased cancer incidence and mortality observed in this population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed patient education materials and prostate-specific quality-of-life instruments to identify technical terms describing sexual, urinary, and bowel function. Understanding of these terms was assessed in face-to-face interviews of 105, mostly African-American men, age > or = 40, from two low-income clinics. Comprehension was evaluated using semiqualitative methods coded by two independent investigators. Demographics were collected and literacy was measured. RESULTS: Fewer than 50% of patients understood the terms "erection" or "impotent." Only 5% of patients understood the term "incontinence" and 25% understood the term "bowel habits." More patients recognized word roots than related terms or compound words (eg, "rectum" v "rectal urgency," "intercourse" v "vaginal intercourse"). Comprehension of terms from all domains was statistically significantly correlated with reading level (P < .001). Median literacy level was fourth to sixth grade. Prostate cancer knowledge was poor. Many patients had difficulty locating key anatomic structures. CONCLUSION: Limited comprehension of prostate cancer terms and low literacy create barriers to obtaining informed consent for treatment and to measuring prostate cancer outcomes accurately in our study population. In addition, the level of prostate cancer knowledge was poor. These results highlight the need for prostate cancer education efforts and outcomes measurements that consider literacy and use nonmedical language.
PURPOSE: To assess the comprehension of common medical terms used in prostate cancer in patient education materials to obtain informed consent, and to measure outcomes after prostate cancer treatment. We address this issue among underserved, African-American men because of the increased cancer incidence and mortality observed in this population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed patient education materials and prostate-specific quality-of-life instruments to identify technical terms describing sexual, urinary, and bowel function. Understanding of these terms was assessed in face-to-face interviews of 105, mostly African-American men, age > or = 40, from two low-income clinics. Comprehension was evaluated using semiqualitative methods coded by two independent investigators. Demographics were collected and literacy was measured. RESULTS: Fewer than 50% of patients understood the terms "erection" or "impotent." Only 5% of patients understood the term "incontinence" and 25% understood the term "bowel habits." More patients recognized word roots than related terms or compound words (eg, "rectum" v "rectal urgency," "intercourse" v "vaginal intercourse"). Comprehension of terms from all domains was statistically significantly correlated with reading level (P < .001). Median literacy level was fourth to sixth grade. Prostate cancer knowledge was poor. Many patients had difficulty locating key anatomic structures. CONCLUSION: Limited comprehension of prostate cancer terms and low literacy create barriers to obtaining informed consent for treatment and to measuring prostate cancer outcomes accurately in our study population. In addition, the level of prostate cancer knowledge was poor. These results highlight the need for prostate cancer education efforts and outcomes measurements that consider literacy and use nonmedical language.
Authors: Paul Ritvo; Jane Irvine; Gary Naglie; George Tomlinson; Andrea Bezjak; Andrew Matthew; John Trachtenberg; Murray Krahn Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: A L Potosky; L C Harlan; J L Stanford; F D Gilliland; A S Hamilton; P C Albertsen; J W Eley; J M Liff; D Deapen; R A Stephenson; J Legler; C E Ferrans; J A Talcott; M S Litwin Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1999-10-20 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Martin G Sanda; Rodney L Dunn; Jeff Michalski; Howard M Sandler; Laurel Northouse; Larry Hembroff; Xihong Lin; Thomas K Greenfield; Mark S Litwin; Christopher S Saigal; Arul Mahadevan; Eric Klein; Adam Kibel; Louis L Pisters; Deborah Kuban; Irving Kaplan; David Wood; Jay Ciezki; Nikhil Shah; John T Wei Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-03-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Timothy J Wilt; Roderick MacDonald; Indulis Rutks; Tatyana A Shamliyan; Brent C Taylor; Robert L Kane Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-02-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Kathleen M Mazor; Josephine Calvi; Rebecca Cowan; Mary E Costanza; Paul K J Han; Sarah M Greene; Laura Saccoccio; Erica Cove; Douglas Roblin; Andrew Williams Journal: J Health Commun Date: 2010
Authors: Barak Gaster; Kelly Edwards; Susan Brown Trinidad; Thomas H Gallagher; Clarence H Braddock Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2010-11-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Neelam S Joglekar; Swapna S Deshpande; Seema Sahay; Manisha V Ghate; Robert C Bollinger; Sanjay M Mehendale Journal: Int Health Date: 2012-12-30 Impact factor: 2.473
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: Jie Zhang; Zhi-Wei Ye; Danyelle M Townsend; Chanita Hughes-Halbert; Kenneth D Tew Journal: Adv Cancer Res Date: 2019-04-23 Impact factor: 6.242
Authors: Jasmine A McDonald; Frances K Barg; Benita Weathers; Carmen E Guerra; Andrea B Troxel; Susan Domchek; Deborah Bowen; Judy A Shea; Chanita Hughes Halbert Journal: J Natl Med Assoc Date: 2012 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.798