A Study to Compare a CHW-Led Versus Physician-Led Intervention for Prostate Cancer Screening Decision-Making among Black Men

N. Martínez-López, D. Makarov, Jerry Thomas, Shannon E Ciprut, Theodore Hickman, Helen Cole, Michael Fenstermaker, H. Gold, S. Loeb, J. Ravenell
{"title":"A Study to Compare a CHW-Led Versus Physician-Led Intervention for Prostate Cancer Screening Decision-Making among Black Men","authors":"N. Martínez-López, D. Makarov, Jerry Thomas, Shannon E Ciprut, Theodore Hickman, Helen Cole, Michael Fenstermaker, H. Gold, S. Loeb, J. Ravenell","doi":"10.18865/1722","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among men in the United States and harms Black men disproportionately. Most US men are uninformed about many key facts important to make an informed decision about prostate cancer. Most experts agree that it is important for men to learn about these problems as early as possible in their lifetime.\n \n \n \n To compare the effect of a community health worker (CHW)-led educational session with a physician-led educational session that counsels Black men about the risks and benefits of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening.\n \n \n \n One hundred eighteen Black men recruited in 8 community-based settings attended a prostate cancer screening education session led by either a CHW or a physician. Participants completed surveys before and after the session to assess knowledge, decisional conflict, and perceptions about the intervention. Both arms used a decision aid that explains the benefits, risks, and controversies of PSA screening and decision coaching.\n \n \n \n There was no significant difference in decisional conflict change by group: 24.31 physician led versus 30.64 CHW led (P=.31). The CHW-led group showed significantly greater improvement on knowledge after intervention, change (SD): 2.6 (2.81) versus 5.1 (3.19), P<.001). However, those in the physician-led group were more likely to agree that the speaker knew a lot about PSA testing (P<.001) and were more likely to trust the speaker (P<.001).\n \n \n \n CHW-led interventions can effectively assist Black men with complex health decision-making in community-based settings. This approach may improve prostate cancer knowledge and equally minimize decisional conflict compared with a physician-led intervention.\n","PeriodicalId":315728,"journal":{"name":"Ethnicity and Disease","volume":"115 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethnicity and Disease","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18865/1722","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among men in the United States and harms Black men disproportionately. Most US men are uninformed about many key facts important to make an informed decision about prostate cancer. Most experts agree that it is important for men to learn about these problems as early as possible in their lifetime. To compare the effect of a community health worker (CHW)-led educational session with a physician-led educational session that counsels Black men about the risks and benefits of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening. One hundred eighteen Black men recruited in 8 community-based settings attended a prostate cancer screening education session led by either a CHW or a physician. Participants completed surveys before and after the session to assess knowledge, decisional conflict, and perceptions about the intervention. Both arms used a decision aid that explains the benefits, risks, and controversies of PSA screening and decision coaching. There was no significant difference in decisional conflict change by group: 24.31 physician led versus 30.64 CHW led (P=.31). The CHW-led group showed significantly greater improvement on knowledge after intervention, change (SD): 2.6 (2.81) versus 5.1 (3.19), P<.001). However, those in the physician-led group were more likely to agree that the speaker knew a lot about PSA testing (P<.001) and were more likely to trust the speaker (P<.001). CHW-led interventions can effectively assist Black men with complex health decision-making in community-based settings. This approach may improve prostate cancer knowledge and equally minimize decisional conflict compared with a physician-led intervention.
一项比较黑人男性前列腺癌筛查决策中chw与医生主导干预的研究
前列腺癌是美国男性癌症死亡的第二大原因,对黑人男性的危害尤为严重。大多数美国男性不了解许多重要的事实,这些事实对于做出关于前列腺癌的明智决定至关重要。大多数专家都认为,男性在一生中尽早了解这些问题是很重要的。比较社区卫生工作者(CHW)主导的教育课程与医生主导的教育课程的效果,后者向黑人男性咨询前列腺特异性抗原(PSA)筛查的风险和益处。在8个社区环境中招募的118名黑人男性参加了由CHW或医生领导的前列腺癌筛查教育会议。参与者在会议前后完成了调查,以评估知识,决策冲突和对干预的看法。两组都使用决策辅助来解释PSA筛查和决策指导的益处、风险和争议。决策冲突的改变在不同组间无显著差异:24.31名医生领导与30.64名护士领导(P= 0.31)。chw组干预后认知改善显著,差异有统计学意义(SD): 2.6 (2.81) vs 5.1 (3.19), P< 0.001。然而,在医生领导的小组中,那些更有可能同意演讲者对PSA检测了解很多(P< 0.001),并且更有可能信任演讲者(P< 0.001)。chw领导的干预措施可以有效地帮助黑人男子在社区环境中做出复杂的健康决策。与医生主导的干预相比,这种方法可以提高对前列腺癌的认识,同样可以最大限度地减少决策冲突。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信