Background African-American men have the lowest 5-year survival rate in the U.S. for colorectal cancer (CRC) of any racial group, which may partly stem from low screening adherence. It is imperative to synthesize the literature evaluating the effectiveness of interventions on CRC screening uptake in this population. Materials and methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched for U.S.-based interventions that: were published after 1998–January 2020; included African-American men; and evaluated CRC screening uptake explicitly. Checklist by Cochrane Collaboration and Joanna Brigg were utilized to assess risk of bias, and meta-regression and sensitivity analyses were employed to identify the most effective interventions. Results Our final sample comprised 41 studies with 2 focused exclusively on African-American men. The most frequently adopted interventions were educational materials (39%), stool-based screening kits (14%), and patient navigation (11%). Most randomized controlled trials failed to provide details about the blinding of the participant recruitment method, allocation concealment method, and/or the outcome assessment. Due to high heterogeneity, meta-analysis was conducted among 17 eligible studies. Interventions utilizing stool-based kits or patient navigation were most effective at increasing CRC screening completion, with odds ratios of 9.60 (95% CI 2.89–31.82, p = 0.0002) and 2.84 (95% CI 1.23–6.49, p = 0.01). No evidence of publication bias was present for this study registered with the International Prospective Registry of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO 2019 CRD42019119510). Conclusions Additional research is warranted to uncover effective, affordable interventions focused on increasing CRC screening completion among African-American men. When designing and implementing future multicomponent interventions, employing 4 or fewer interventions types may reduce bias risk. Since only 5% of the interventions solely focused on African-American men, future theory-driven interventions should consider recruiting samples comprised solely of this population.

No abstract

No abstract

PURPOSE: Racial and ethnic minorities remain underrepresented in research and clinical trials. Better understanding of the components of effective minority recruitment into research studies is critical to understanding and reducing health disparities. Research on recruitment strategies for cancer-specific research—including colorectal cancer (CRC)—among African American men is particularly limited. We present an instrumental exploratory case study examining successful and unsuccessful strategies for recruiting African American men into focus groups centered on identifying barriers to and facilitators of CRC screening completion. METHODS: The parent qualitative study was designed to explore the social determinants of CRC screening uptake among African American men 45-75 years of age. Recruitment procedures made use of community-based participatory research strategies combined with built community relationships, including the use of trusted community members, culturally tailored marketing materials, and incentives. RESULTS: Community involvement and culturally tailored marketing materials facilitated recruitment. Barriers to recruitment included limited access to public spaces, transportation difficulties, and medical mistrust leading to reluctance to participate. CONCLUSION: The use of strategies such as prioritizing community relationship building, partnering with community leaders and gatekeepers, and using culturally tailored marketing materials can successfully overcome barriers to the recruitment of African American men into medical research studies. To improve participation and recruitment rates among racial and ethnic minorities in cancer-focused research studies, future researchers and clinical trial investigators should aim to broaden recruitment, strengthen community ties, offer incentives, and use multifaceted approaches to address specific deterrents such as medical mistrust and economic barriers.