Prostate cancer screening and shared decision-making preferences among African-American members of the Prince Hall Masons.

OBJECTIVES: Shared decision making (SDM) is recommended as one method to assist men in making an informed decision about prostate cancer screening (PCS). SDM preferences for PCS have not been evaluated among African-American (AA) men. Given AA men's increased risk and the uncertainty surrounding screening, it is critical to determine how to assist AA men in making an informed decision. We assessed the extent to which a sample of AA men wished to engage in SDM regarding PCS and the demographic and psychological characteristics associated with SDM preferences. METHODS: Participants completed a telephone interview that covered demographic and medical information, SDM preferences, PCS knowledge, decisional conflict, and satisfaction with previous screening decisions. Subjects included 286 AA men aged 40-70, who were members of a Masonic organization. RESULTS: Fifty-seven percent preferred SDM, 36% preferred to make their own decision, and 7% wanted their doctor to decide. A higher level of education and older age were associated with preferring SDM (p<0.05), while men with greater PCS knowledge were more likely to prefer to make the decision independently (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that physicians need to be prepared to discuss PCS with their patients. Further, more attention may be needed to engage younger, less educated, and less knowledgeable men as they may be less likely to discuss PCS. This understanding of AA men's preferences for PCS decisions helps to clarify the issues that health professionals need to consider when attempting to assist AA men in making a PCS decision.

Educating African American men about the prostate cancer screening dilemma: a randomized intervention.

BACKGROUND: Until there is a definitive demonstration that early diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer reduces disease-related mortality, it is imperative to promote informed screening decisions by providing balanced information about the potential benefits and risks of prostate cancer screening. Within a community/academic collaboration, we conducted a randomized trial of a printed booklet and a videotape that were designed for African American (AA) men. The purpose of the trial was to determine the effect of the interventions on knowledge, decisional conflict, satisfaction with the screening decision, and self-reported screening. METHODS: Participants were 238 AA men, ages 40 to 70 years, who were members of the Prince Hall Masons in Washington, DC. Men were randomly assigned to the (a) video-based information study arm, (b) print-based information study arm, or (c) wait list control study arm. Intervention materials were mailed to men at home. Assessments were conducted at baseline, 1 month, and 12 months postintervention. Multivariate analyses, including ANCOVA and logistic regression, were used to analyze group differences. RESULTS: The booklet and video resulted in a significant improvement in knowledge and a reduction in decisional conflict about prostate cancer screening, relative to the wait list control. Satisfaction with the screening decision was not affected by the interventions. Self-reported screening rates increased between the baseline and the 1-year assessment, although screening was not differentially associated with either of the interventions. In exploratory analyses, prostate-specific antigen testing at 1 year was more likely among previously screened men and was associated with having low baseline decisional conflict. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents one of the first randomized intervention trials specifically designed to address AA men's informed decision making about prostate cancer screening. We have developed and evaluated culturally sensitive, balanced, and disseminable materials that improved knowledge and reduced decisional conflict about prostate cancer screening among AA men. Due to the high incidence and mortality rates among AA men, there is a need for targeted educational materials, particularly materials that are balanced in terms of the benefits and risks of screening.