Using a community-engaged research process to plan, implement, and evaluate a cancer education program to improve knowledge and screening intentions among African American men.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Whitney George, Malakai Miller, Elizabeth C Stewart, Derek Wilus, LaNese Campbell, Bishop Calvin Barlow, Tilicia L Mayo-Gamble, Claudia Barajas, Cornelius Hill, Vincent Johnson, Lawrence Reed, John Williams, Jennifer Cunningham-Erves
{"title":"Using a community-engaged research process to plan, implement, and evaluate a cancer education program to improve knowledge and screening intentions among African American men.","authors":"Whitney George, Malakai Miller, Elizabeth C Stewart, Derek Wilus, LaNese Campbell, Bishop Calvin Barlow, Tilicia L Mayo-Gamble, Claudia Barajas, Cornelius Hill, Vincent Johnson, Lawrence Reed, John Williams, Jennifer Cunningham-Erves","doi":"10.1080/07347332.2024.2379822","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>We assessed acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary efficacy of a culturally appropriate, cancer education program to improve cancer knowledge, attitudes, subjective norms, and screening intentions for oropharynx, colon, and prostate cancers among African American men. We detailed the community-engaged research process used for African American men to design, implement, and evaluate the program.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We recruited 84 (61 in-person, 23 online) African American men over 2-months across 4 churches in Middle Tennessee in 2021. A single group, pre-post-test design was used to evaluate the 2.5-h hybrid program. Scales used were: <i>General self-efficacy for cancer screening</i>; <i>attitudes toward cancer</i>; <i>general cancer knowledge</i>; and <i>subjective norms related to cancer</i>. One-item measured <i>cancer screening intention</i>. Taba robust partial correlation measured the degree of association between changes in means of each explanatory variable with changes in means of each outcome variable. IBM SPSS version 28 and R/RStudio version 3.6.0 was used for data analysis. We conducted three focus groups (<i>n</i> = 17) to assess program acceptability. Microsoft Excel version 26 was used to conduct thematic analysis for this data.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Quantitative Significant differences were found in the pre/post comparisons of knowledge (mean difference: 0.22; <i>p</i>-value = 0.015), self-efficacy (mean difference: 0.23; <i>p</i>-value < 0.001), and prostate cancer screening intention (mean difference: 0.19; <i>p</i>-value = 0.049) scores. This indicates the mean score for knowledge, self-efficacy, and prostate cancer screening intention was significantly higher post-intervention. <b>Qualitative</b> Focus group themes were: (1) Impact of Program on Participants Psychosocial Health (2) Perspectives on Life after the program. (3) Views on Programmatic Components; (4) Recommendations for Program Improvement.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Results demonstrate our program is feasible, acceptable, and could increase cancer screening intentions and behavior. Psychosocial providers should demonstrate cultural awareness and humility when providing services to address the psychological and social needs for cancer screening among African American men.</p>","PeriodicalId":47451,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Psychosocial Oncology","volume":" ","pages":"1-24"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Psychosocial Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07347332.2024.2379822","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: We assessed acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary efficacy of a culturally appropriate, cancer education program to improve cancer knowledge, attitudes, subjective norms, and screening intentions for oropharynx, colon, and prostate cancers among African American men. We detailed the community-engaged research process used for African American men to design, implement, and evaluate the program.

Materials and methods: We recruited 84 (61 in-person, 23 online) African American men over 2-months across 4 churches in Middle Tennessee in 2021. A single group, pre-post-test design was used to evaluate the 2.5-h hybrid program. Scales used were: General self-efficacy for cancer screening; attitudes toward cancer; general cancer knowledge; and subjective norms related to cancer. One-item measured cancer screening intention. Taba robust partial correlation measured the degree of association between changes in means of each explanatory variable with changes in means of each outcome variable. IBM SPSS version 28 and R/RStudio version 3.6.0 was used for data analysis. We conducted three focus groups (n = 17) to assess program acceptability. Microsoft Excel version 26 was used to conduct thematic analysis for this data.

Findings: Quantitative Significant differences were found in the pre/post comparisons of knowledge (mean difference: 0.22; p-value = 0.015), self-efficacy (mean difference: 0.23; p-value < 0.001), and prostate cancer screening intention (mean difference: 0.19; p-value = 0.049) scores. This indicates the mean score for knowledge, self-efficacy, and prostate cancer screening intention was significantly higher post-intervention. Qualitative Focus group themes were: (1) Impact of Program on Participants Psychosocial Health (2) Perspectives on Life after the program. (3) Views on Programmatic Components; (4) Recommendations for Program Improvement.

Conclusions: Results demonstrate our program is feasible, acceptable, and could increase cancer screening intentions and behavior. Psychosocial providers should demonstrate cultural awareness and humility when providing services to address the psychological and social needs for cancer screening among African American men.

利用社区参与研究过程来规划、实施和评估一项癌症教育计划,以提高非裔美国男性对癌症的认识和筛查意向。
目的我们评估了一项文化适宜的癌症教育计划的可接受性、可行性和初步疗效,该计划旨在提高非裔美国男性的癌症知识、态度、主观规范以及口咽癌、结肠癌和前列腺癌筛查意向。我们详细介绍了针对非裔美国男性设计、实施和评估该计划的社区参与研究过程:2021 年,我们在田纳西州中部的 4 个教堂招募了 84 名非洲裔美国男性(61 人亲临现场,23 人在线),历时 2 个月。我们采用了单组、前-后测试设计来评估 2.5 小时的混合项目。使用的量表包括癌症筛查的一般自我效能;对癌症的态度;癌症常识;以及与癌症相关的主观规范。一个项目测量癌症筛查意向。塔巴稳健偏相关测量了每个解释变量的均值变化与每个结果变量的均值变化之间的关联程度。数据分析使用了 IBM SPSS 28 版本和 R/RStudio 3.6.0 版本。我们开展了三个焦点小组(n = 17)来评估项目的可接受性。我们使用 Microsoft Excel 26 版对这些数据进行了专题分析:在知识(平均差异:0.22;P 值 = 0.015)、自我效能(平均差异:0.23;P 值 < 0.001)和前列腺癌筛查意向(平均差异:0.19;P 值 = 0.049)得分的前后比较中发现了显著差异。这表明知识、自我效能和前列腺癌筛查意向的平均得分在干预后显著提高。定性焦点小组的主题是(1) 计划对参与者社会心理健康的影响 (2) 对计划后生活的看法。(3) 对计划内容的看法;(4) 对计划改进的建议:结果表明,我们的计划是可行的、可接受的,并能提高癌症筛查的意向和行为。社会心理服务提供者在提供服务以满足非裔美国男性癌症筛查的心理和社会需求时,应表现出文化意识和谦逊。
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
Journal of Psychosocial Oncology
Journal of Psychosocial Oncology PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL-
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Here is your single source of integrated information on providing the best psychosocial care possible from the knowledge available from many disciplines.The Journal of Psychosocial Oncology is an essential source for up-to-date clinical and research material geared toward health professionals who provide psychosocial services to cancer patients, their families, and their caregivers. The journal—the first interdisciplinary resource of its kind—is in its third decade of examining exploratory and hypothesis testing and presenting program evaluation research on critical areas, including: the stigma of cancer; employment and personal problems facing cancer patients; patient education.
×
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