Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Promoting informed prostate cancer screening decision-making for African American men in a community-based setting

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Cancer Causes & Control Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Current screening guidelines for prostate cancer (PCa) encourage men to make individual screening decisions after consulting with their primary care provider to weigh the risks and benefits of undergoing prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing, but many men at high risk of PCa diagnosis (notably African American men) are more likely to be uninsured and lack a primary care provider. An academic-community partnership redesigned its community-based screening program to ensure access to services for African American men, incorporating a session with a trained clinical educator in community settings, designed to increase knowledge and promote informed decision-making regarding PSA testing. This study evaluated effects of the intervention on decision-making outcomes.

Methods

To evaluate program efficacy, 88 men completed pre- and post-test surveys assessing outcomes of interest.

Results

Participants’ knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, anxiety levels, and self-efficacy all improved from pre- to post-test at a statistically significant level. Most notably participants’ awareness that PCa is often not life-threatening, and watchful waiting is a reasonable treatment option increased after the encounter. More than half of the study sample felt they had received enough knowledge to make an informed decision about whether the PSA test was right for them.

Conclusion

Our findings show the program had positive effects on men’s ability to make informed decisions about PCa screening and demonstrate that educational outreach programs with an emphasis on informed decision-making can effectively balance screening guidelines with the needs of underserved populations in community settings to improve outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author SN. The data are not publicly available due to restrictions that protect research participant privacy.

Code availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. Fenton JJ, Weyrich MS, Durbin S, Liu Y et al (2018) Prostate-specific antigen-based screening for prostate cancer: evidence report and systematic review for the US preventive services task force. JAMA 319(18):1914–1931

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Draisma G, Etzioni R, Tsodikov A, Mariotto A et al (2009) Lead time and overdiagnosis in prostate-specific antigen screening: importance of methods and context. J Natl Cancer Inst 101(6):374–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. National Cancer Institute. SEER Cancer Statistics Factsheets: Prostate Cancer. Accessed January 11, 2021. Available from: http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html.

  4. Mitchell JA (2013) Social epidemiology: a tool for examining prostate cancer early-detection decision making among older African American men. Soc Work Public Health 28(7):652–659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Moyer, VA (2012) Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med, 157(2): p. 120–34.

  6. Petitti D, Lin JS, Burda BU (2018) Overdiagnosis in prostate cancer screening decision models: a contextual review for the U.S. preventive services task force. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Rockville, MD.

  7. Fenton, JJ, Weyrich, MS, Durbin, S, Liu, Y, et al (2018) U.S. preventive services task force evidence syntheses, formerly systematic evidence reviews, in prostate-specific antigen-based screening for prostate cancer: a systematic evidence review for the U.S. preventive services task force. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US): Rockville (MD).

  8. Grossman DC, Curry SJ, Owens DK, Bibbins-Domingo K et al (2018) Screening for prostate cancer: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA 319(18):1901–1913

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Politi MC, Studts JL, Hayslip JW (2012) Shared decision making in oncology practice: what do oncologists need to know? Oncologist 17(1):91–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bekker H, Thornton JG, Airey CM, Connelly JB et al (1999) Informed decision making: an annotated bibliography and systematic review. Health Technol Assess 3(1):1–156

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Elwyn G, Frosch D, Thomson R, Joseph-Williams N et al (2012) Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med 27(10):1361–1367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Shay LA, Lafata JE (2015) Where is the evidence? a systematic review of shared decision making and patient outcomes. Med Decis Making 35(1):114–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis KB (2017) Patient decision aids to engage adults in treatment or screening decisions. JAMA 318(7):657–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hughes TM, Merath K, Chen Q, Sun S et al (2018) Association of shared decision-making on patient-reported health outcomes and healthcare utilization. Am J Surg 216(1):7–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Adsul P, Wray R, Spradling K, Darwish O et al (2015) Systematic review of decision aids for newly diagnosed patients with prostate cancer making treatment decisions. J Urol 194(5):1247–1252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hammond WP, Mohottige D, Chantala K, Hastings JF et al (2011) Determinants of usual source of care disparities among African American and Caribbean Black men: findings from the National Survey of American Life. J Health Care Poor Underserved 22(1):157–175

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Royster DA (2007) What happens to potential discouraged? masculinity norms and the contrasting institutional and labor market experiences of less affluent Black and White Men. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 609(1):153–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Williams DR (2008) The health of men: structured inequalities and opportunities. Am J Public Health 98(9 Suppl):S150–S157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bailey ZD, Krieger N, Agénor M, Graves J et al (2017) Structural racism and health inequities in the USA: evidence and interventions. Lancet 389(10077):1453–1463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ashton CM, Haidet P, Paterniti DA, Collins TC et al (2003) Racial and ethnic disparities in the use of health services: bias, preferences, or poor communication? J Gen Intern Med 18(2):146–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hammond WP (2010) Psychosocial correlates of medical mistrust among African American men. Am J Community Psychol 45(1–2):87–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gilbert KL, Ray R, Siddiqi A, Shetty S et al (2016) Visible and invisible trends in Black Men’s health: pitfalls and promises for addressing racial, ethnic, and gender inequities in health. Annu Rev Public Health 37:295–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Israel BA, Coombe CM, Cheezum RR, Schulz AJ et al (2010) Community-based participatory research: a capacity-building approach for policy advocacy aimed at eliminating health disparities. Am J Public Health 100(11):2094–2102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wallerstein NB, Duran B (2006) Using community-based participatory research to address health disparities. Health Promot Pract 7(3):312–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Braun, KL, Stewart, S, Baquet, C, Berry-Bobovski, L, et al (2015) The National Cancer Institute’s Community Networks Program initiative to reduce cancer health disparities: outcomes and lessons learned. Prog Community Health Partnersh, 9 Suppl(0): 21–32.

  26. Sandoval JA, Lucero J, Oetzel J, Avila M et al (2012) Process and outcome constructs for evaluating community-based participatory research projects: a matrix of existing measures. Health Educ Res 27(4):680–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Wray RJ, Vijaykumar S, Jupka K, Zellin S, Shahid M (2011) Addressing the challenge of informed decision making in prostate cancer community outreach to African American men. Am J Mens Health 5(6):508–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Vijaykumar S, Wray RJ, Jupka K, Clarke R, Shahid M (2013) Prostate cancer survivors as community health educators: implications for informed decision making and cancer communication. J Cancer Educ 28(4):623–628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Roth AJ, Rosenfeld B, Kornblith AB, Gibson C et al (2003) The memorial anxiety scale for prostate cancer: validation of a new scale to measure anxiety in men with with prostate cancer. Cancer 97(11):2910–2918

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Holmes-Rovner M, Kroll J, Schmitt N, Rovner DR, Breer L, Rothert M et al (1996) Patient satisfaction with health care decisions: the satisfaction with decision scale. Med Decis Making 16:58–64

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Ellis L, Canchola AJ, Spiegel D, Ladabaum U et al (2018) Racial and ethnic disparities in cancer survival: the contribution of tumor, sociodemographic, institutional, and neighborhood characteristics. J Clin Oncol 36(1):25–33

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Lynch, SM, Handorf, E, Sorice, KA, Blackman, E, et al (2020) The effect of neighborhood social environment on prostate cancer development in black and white men at high risk for prostate cancer. PLoS One, 15(8): e0237332.

  33. Rice LJ, Jefferson M, Briggs V, Delmoor E et al (2017) Discordance in perceived risk and epidemiological outcomes of prostate cancer among African American men. Prev Med Rep 7:1–6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Alvidrez J, Nápoles AM, Bernal G, Lloyd J et al (2019) Building the evidence base to inform planned intervention adaptations by practitioners serving health disparity populations. Am J Public Health 109(S1):S94-s101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Erves JC, Mayo-Gamble TL, Malin-Fair A, Boyer A et al (2017) Needs, priorities, and recommendations for engaging underrepresented populations in clinical research: a community perspective. J Community Health 42(3):472–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Not applicable

Funding

The study was funded by Emerson, Ascension Health, and Express Scripts.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Behavioral Science and Health Education, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO, USA

    Ricardo J. Wray

  2. Center for Health Equity, Dayton Children’s Hospital, Dayton, OH, USA

    Shannon E. Nicks

  3. Department of Internal Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA

    Prajakta Adsul

  4. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO, USA

    Michael Elliot

  5. Department of Health Management and Policy, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO, USA

    Kimberly Enard

  6. College of Nursing, University of Missouri-St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA

    Keri Jupka

  7. Simply Strategy, St. Louis, MO, USA

    Anna K. Trainer

  8. Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD, 20850, USA

    Natasha Hansen

  9. The Empowerment Network, St. Louis, MO, USA

    Mellve Shahid & Robin Wright-Jones

  10. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO, USA

    Sameer Siddiqui

Authors
  1. Ricardo J. Wray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shannon E. Nicks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Prajakta Adsul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael Elliot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kimberly Enard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Keri Jupka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Anna K. Trainer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Natasha Hansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Mellve Shahid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Robin Wright-Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Sameer Siddiqui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Intervention and study conception and design were performed by RJW, SN, PA, KJ, MS, RWJ and SS. Material preparation and data collection were performed by SN, PA and KJ; data analysis was performed by RJW, SN, ME, KJ, AKT, and NH. The first draft of the manuscript was written by RJW; all authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shannon E. Nicks.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None of the authors report a conflict of interest for this study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1 Pre-test and Post-test survey scales and items

Appendix 1 Pre-test and Post-test survey scales and items

Knowledge items

True

False

Not sure/I don’t know

The chance of getting prostate cancer increases with age

   

The prostate specific antigen (PSA) test will detect prostate cancers

   

A prostate biopsy can tell you with more certainty whether you have prostate cancer than a prostate specific antigen (PSA) test can

   

Prostate cancer is more common in Caucasian (White) men than African American men

   

Most men will die of something other than prostate cancer

   

Men who have an abnormal screening result may be advised to have a biopsy as follow-up

   

Men who are treated for early prostate cancer are at risk for having sexual or urinary function problems

   

Watchful waiting and active surveillance are options for men diagnosed with prostate cancer

   

Screening-related attitudes and beliefs

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

It is important for a man to think about what he would do if he has an abnormal test result, before getting tested for prostate cancer

     

It is important for a man to weigh the potential pros and cons of getting tested for prostate cancer before deciding whether or not to be tested

     

If a man chooses not to be tested for prostate cancer, that is okay

     

I think the chance that I will develop prostate cancer is high

     

Having prostate cancer screening makes sense for me

     

Prostate cancer and screening-related anxiety

Not at all

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Any reference to prostate cancer brought up strong feelings in me

    

Even though it’s a good idea, I found that getting a PSA test scared me

    

Whenever I heard about a friend or public figure with prostate cancer, I got more anxious about my having prostate cancer

    

When I thought about having a PSA test, I got more anxious about my having prostate cancer

    

Other things kept making me think about prostate cancer

    

I felt kind of numb when I thought about prostate cancer

    

I thought about prostate cancer even though I didn’t mean to

    

I had a lot of feelings about prostate cancer, but I didn’t want to deal with them

    

I had more trouble falling asleep because I couldn’t get thoughts of prostate cancer out of my mind

    

Just hearing the words “prostate cancer” scared me

    

Screening decision self-efficacy

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neither agree or disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

I have enough information about prostate cancer

     

My decision whether to get screened for prostate cancer is based on complete information

     

I have made up my own mind about whether to get screened for prostate cancer

     

I am confident that I can make an informed decision about getting screened for prostate cancer

     

Intention to engage with provider

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neither agree or disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

I plan to talk to my health care provider about prostate cancer

     

I plan to talk to my health care provider about getting screened for prostate cancer

     

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wray, R.J., Nicks, S.E., Adsul, P. et al. Promoting informed prostate cancer screening decision-making for African American men in a community-based setting. Cancer Causes Control 33, 503–514 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-021-01544-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-021-01544-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation