Information seeking and scanning refers to active pursuit of information and passive exposure, respectively. Cancer (ca) is the leading cause of mortality for Asian Americans, yet little is known about their ca information seeking/scanning behaviors (SSB). We aimed to evaluate ca SSB among older limited English proficient (LEP) Vietnamese immigrants, compared to Whites/ African Americans. 104 semi-structured interviews about breast/prostate/colon ca SSB (age 50-70) were conducted in English and Vietnamese, transcribed, and coded for frequency of source use, active/passive nature, depth of recall, and relevance to decisions. Higher SSB was associated with ca screening. In contrast to non-Vietnamese, SSB for Vietnamese was low. Median # of ca screening sources was 2 (vs. 8-9 for non-Vietnamese). They also had less seeking, lower recall, and less decision-making relevance for information on colon ca and all ca combined. Overall,

Background: Black men are disproportionately impacted by prostate cancer (PrCa). Current guidelines recommend that all men make informed decisions about whether to be screened for PrCa. Little is known about the barriers and facilitators of informed decision-making (IDM) about PrCa screening in Black men.Methods: We conducted focus groups with a convenience sample of Black men aged 55 to 69 years from a primary care practice (n = 21). Template analysis was used to evaluate themes related to barriers and facilitators of IDM about PrCa screening.Results: IDM was impacted by external factors, intrinsic factors, and personal beliefs about PrCa screening. Family, friends, and clinicians played a paramount role in shaping attitudes about PrCa screening. Distrust of the medical community impaired IDM, and lack of clinician communication about PrCa screening further engendered mistrust. Participants felt they lacked adequate knowledge to make an informed decision about PrCa screening. Identified areas to promote IDM included education on racial disparities, education that screening is a personal choice, and differentiating PrCa screening from colon cancer screening.Conclusions: Our results indicate that Black men may lack the prerequisite information to make informed decisions about PrCa screening, which is notable in light of known PrCa racial disparities. Clinicians can play an important role in facilitating IDM through fostering discussions about the benefits and risks of PrCa screening and educating Black men about racial disparities.

Background: Black men are disproportionately impacted by prostate cancer. Guidelines agree that Black men should make informed decisions about whether to engage in prostate cancer screening. YouTube is widely used among Black men and impacts understanding of health conditions.Objectives: Given that misleading online health information might be especially harmful to Black men, the objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of information regarding prostate cancer screening for Black men available on YouTube.Methods: Four viewers watched the top 50 videos using the search term "Prostate Cancer Screening in Black Men." Videos were scored using the previously validated DISCERN quality criteria for consumer health information and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT). Results were compared based on video characteristics like presenter perceived demographics and viewer engagement metrics.Results: Inter-rater reliability testing showed consistency for the PEMAT (interclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.69) and DISCERN (ICC= 0.85). Few videos (16%) met the DISCERN quality threshold (54.4/80), and 28% of videos met the PEMAT threshold (10.5/15). Less than half of videos addressed racial disparities in prostate cancer. There was no difference in quality based on perceived race of the presenter (DISCERN P = .06, PEMAT P = .43).Conclusions: The overall quality of videos about prostate cancer screening in Black men is poor, including those with Black presenters. Clinicians should be aware of potential misinformation that Black patients receive from YouTube and the opportunity to improve the quality of available information about prostate cancer screening in Black men.

Background and Objectives: Updated 2018 prostate cancer screening guidelines recommend informed decision-making discussions, which should include education on prostate cancer’s disproportionate impact on Black men. It is unknown whether academic family physicians follow these guidelines. Methods: Family physicians were surveyed as part of the 2020 Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance (CERA) survey. We used χ2 to compare physicians’ knowledge and screening practices stratified by physician age, gender, and percentage of Black patients in patient panel. We calculated logistic regressions predicting shared decision-making conversations, barriers to shared decision-making, inclusion of race in prostate cancer screening approach, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing adjusted for physician age, gender, and percentage of Black patients. Results: Physicians reported engaging in shared decision-making for prostate cancer screening in half of eligible men. Only 29.2% of physicians reported routinely informing Black men of their increased prostate cancer risk. In logistic regressions, physician gender (female) and fewer Black patients in panel (<25%) were associated with lower frequency of shared decision-making with Black patients. Physician age (<40 years) was associated with not discussing race during screening discussions (OR 2.24, 95% CI 1.55–3.23). Conclusions: Most academic family physicians do not appropriately inform Black men of increased prostate cancer risk, with younger physicians less likely to discuss race than older physicians. Female physicians, and physicians who see fewer Black patients, are less likely to have shared decision-making conversations with Black patients. This suggests educational efforts for these groups are needed to address health disparities in prostate cancer.