Jaimie C Hunter1, Anissa I Vines2, Veronica Carlisle2. 1. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA jaimie.hunter@unc.edu. 2. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force released a hotly debated recommendation against prostate-specific antigen testing for all men. The present research examines African Americans' beliefs about their susceptibility to prostate cancer (PCa) and the effectiveness of prostate-specific antigen testing in the context of the controversy surrounding this recommendation. METHOD: This study used a qualitative design to examine perceptions regarding susceptibility and screening. Data were collected at a community health center and three predominantly African American churches in North Carolina. Study participants were 46 African American men and women who attended one of four "listening sessions" for pretesting PCa educational materials (average age = 55 years). Listening sessions of 1.5-hour duration were conducted to pretest materials; while presenting the materials, researchers probed beliefs and knowledge about PCa screening. The sessions were recorded and transcribed, and the transcripts were qualitatively analyzed using grounded theory. RESULTS: The four emergent themes indicated that participants (1) cited behavioral, psychosocial, and biological reasons why African American men have higher PCa risk compared with others; (2) knew about the controversy and had varying responses and intentions; (3) believed screening could save lives, so it should be used regardless of the 2012 recommendation; and (4) felt that women can help men go to the doctor and make screening decisions. CONCLUSION: Health education efforts to help community members understand health controversies, screening options, and how to make informed screening decisions are critical.
BACKGROUND: In 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force released a hotly debated recommendation against prostate-specific antigen testing for all men. The present research examines African Americans' beliefs about their susceptibility to prostate cancer (PCa) and the effectiveness of prostate-specific antigen testing in the context of the controversy surrounding this recommendation. METHOD: This study used a qualitative design to examine perceptions regarding susceptibility and screening. Data were collected at a community health center and three predominantly African American churches in North Carolina. Study participants were 46 African American men and women who attended one of four "listening sessions" for pretesting PCa educational materials (average age = 55 years). Listening sessions of 1.5-hour duration were conducted to pretest materials; while presenting the materials, researchers probed beliefs and knowledge about PCa screening. The sessions were recorded and transcribed, and the transcripts were qualitatively analyzed using grounded theory. RESULTS: The four emergent themes indicated that participants (1) cited behavioral, psychosocial, and biological reasons why African American men have higher PCa risk compared with others; (2) knew about the controversy and had varying responses and intentions; (3) believed screening could save lives, so it should be used regardless of the 2012 recommendation; and (4) felt that women can help men go to the doctor and make screening decisions. CONCLUSION: Health education efforts to help community members understand health controversies, screening options, and how to make informed screening decisions are critical.
Authors: Roger Chou; Jennifer M Croswell; Tracy Dana; Christina Bougatsos; Ian Blazina; Rongwei Fu; Ken Gleitsmann; Helen C Koenig; Clarence Lam; Ashley Maltz; J Bruin Rugge; Kenneth Lin Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Patrick M Parker; Kevin R Rice; Joseph R Sterbis; Yongmei Chen; Jennifer Cullen; David G McLeod; Stephen A Brassell Journal: Urology Date: 2011-03-12 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Yu-Hsuan Shao; Kitaw Demissie; Weichung Shih; Amit R Mehta; Mark N Stein; Calpurnyia B Roberts; Robert S Dipaola; Grace L Lu-Yao Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2009-08-27 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Angelo D Moore; Jill B Hamilton; George J Knafl; P A Godley; William R Carpenter; Jeannette T Bensen; James L Mohler; Merle Mishel Journal: J Natl Med Assoc Date: 2013 Impact factor: 1.798
Authors: Linda B Squiers; Carla M Bann; Suzanne E Dolina; Janice Tzeng; Lauren McCormack; Douglas Kamerow Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Laura J James; Germaine Wong; Jonathan C Craig; Camilla S Hanson; Angela Ju; Kirsten Howard; Tim Usherwood; Howard Lau; Allison Tong Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jennifer D Allen; Ifedayo C Akinyemi; Amanda Reich; Sasha Fleary; Shalini Tendulkar; Nadeerah Lamour Journal: Am J Mens Health Date: 2018-01-04