Implementing Community-Based Prostate Cancer Education in Rural South Carolina: a Collaborative Approach Through a Statewide Cancer Alliance.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of implementing community-based prostate health education programs in rural communities. Prostate cancer (PrCA) remains one of the most common cancers among men, and a growing body of literature demonstrates that large interracial differences in PrCA incidence and mortality rates consistently disfavor African Americans in comparison to European Americans. It also is evident, despite the overall decrease in cancer death rates in the USA in recent decades, rural areas are experiencing a reduction in death rates much more slowly. In this study, education session content focused on PrCA risk factors, symptoms, screening, healthy diet and exercise, treatment options, and provider communication strategies. Forty individuals participated and completed pre/post-education program surveys to assess changes in PrCA knowledge and cancer decision-making. Participants showed improvements in education and awareness following the session, and overall impressions of the program were consistently positive as exhibited by participants' answers on a satisfaction survey. The findings demonstrate the real need both in terms of research to understand the underlying problem and to provide practical solutions that can be implemented to reverse the current situation. The results obtained support community-based education programs as an effective means of delivering PrCA prevention, screening, and treatment information to rural communities.

Prostate Cancer Information Available in Health-Care Provider Offices: An Analysis of Content, Readability, and Cultural Sensitivity.

Prostate cancer (PrCA) is the most common cancer affecting men in the United States, and African American men have the highest incidence among men in the United States. Little is known about the PrCA-related educational materials being provided to patients in health-care settings. Content, readability, and cultural sensitivity of materials available in providers' practices in South Carolina were examined. A total of 44 educational materials about PrCA and associated sexual dysfunction was collected from 16 general and specialty practices. The content of the materials was coded, and cultural sensitivity was assessed using the Cultural Sensitivity Assessment Tool. Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook were used to assess readability. Communication with health-care providers (52.3%), side effects of PrCA treatment (40.9%), sexual dysfunction and its treatment (38.6%), and treatment options (34.1%) were frequently presented. All materials had acceptable cultural sensitivity scores; however, 2.3% and 15.9% of materials demonstrated unacceptable cultural sensitivity regarding format and visual messages, respectively. Readability of the materials varied. More than half of the materials were written above a high-school reading level. PrCA-related materials available in health-care practices may not meet patients' needs regarding content, cultural sensitivity, and readability. A wide range of educational materials that address various aspects of PrCA, including treatment options and side effects, should be presented in plain language and be culturally sensitive.

Talking About Your Prostate: Perspectives from Providers and Community Members.

Prostate cancer (PrCA) screening is controversial, especially for African-American (AA) men who have higher PrCA incidence and mortality than other racial/ethnic groups. Patient-provider communication is important for the PrCA screening decision process. The study purpose was to better understand the current dialogue between primary care providers (PCPs-physicians and nurse practitioners) and AA men about PrCA prevention and screening. An online survey with 46 PCPs, education sessions (including pre/post surveys) with 56 AA men, and a forum with 5 panelists and 38 AA men for open dialogue were held to examine both provider and community perspectives on PrCA communication needs and practices. PCPs' perceptions of PrCA screening were varied and they used different PrCA screening guidelines in their practices. PCPs and AA men had different experiences with PrCA communication. PCPs reported that they have discussions about PrCA screening and prostate health with AA patients; few AA men reported these same experiences. About 38.0% of PCPs reported that they remain neutral about PSA testing during discussions; however, only 10.7% of AA men reported that their doctor remained neutral. Prostate health knowledge among AA men increased significantly following participation in the education sessions (p < 0.001). AA community members reported high satisfaction regarding the education session and forum. Different recommendations from PCPs may hinder AA men's decisions about PrCA screening. The forum used in this study could be a model for others to help improve patient-provider communication and increase engagement in dialogue about this common cancer.

An evaluation of a community-academic-clinical partnership to reduce prostate cancer disparities in the South.

Engaging partners in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of cancer education programs is critical for improving the health of our communities. A 2-year pilot education intervention on prostate cancer decision making and participation in medical research was funded by the National Cancer Institute. The partnership involving community members and clinical staff at a cancer center was used to develop recruitment strategies and plan for the implementation of the intervention with African-American middle-age and older men and female family members. We assessed partners' perceptions of this community-academic-clinical research collaboration. In year 2, eight project advisory council members were selected among existing partners and year 1 participants to serve as a formal committee. Council members were required to participate in telephone and in person meetings and actively support recruitment/implementation efforts. At the conclusion of the project, 20 individuals (all clinical and community partners, including the eight advisory council members) were invited to complete a survey to assess their perceived impact of the collaboration on the community and provide suggestions for future collaborations. Most partners agreed that their organization benefitted from the collaboration and that various aspects of the advisory council process (e.g., both formal and informal communication) worked well. The most noted accomplishment of the partnership related to leveraging the collaboration to make men more knowledgeable about prostate cancer decision making. Suggested improvements for future collaborations included distributing more frequent updates regarding project successes. Evaluating partners' perceptions of this collaboration provided important recommendations for future planning, implementation, and evaluation of community-based cancer education programs.