Purposeful Interaction: Ways Latino Men Communicate About Prostate Cancer

Abstract

Purpose/Objectives To develop a descriptive framework of the communication processes used by Latinos with prostate cancer to communicate about their diagnosis. Research Approach A constructivist grounded theory approach was used to analyze and build a descriptive framework from semistructured interviews. Setting A university-affiliated urban hospital in southern California. Participants 30 Latinos treated for prostate cancer, who had at least one first-degree male relative (FDMR), and who lived near the medical center. Methodologic Approach Semistructured interviews with bilingual Latinos were conducted in participants’ homes in the language they preferred. Individual and collaborative analyses of translated transcripts were guided by constructivist grounded theory. Findings Analysis uncovered an overarching process of purposeful interacting. Components of the process included occasionally overlapping spheres of communication, which were connected to purposes and content. Balanced in and influenced by the spheres were cross-cutting processes of respectful silence and selective disclosure. Conclusions Men communicated different content about their prostate cancer to people representing different reference groups. Respectful silence and selective disclosure could be viewed as men's enactment of social interaction—using and choosing words based on the symbolic meaning the men perceived would have their intended meaning for the people in each of the spheres. Interpretation Culturally sensitive educational interventions should be targeted at Latinos with prostate cancer to understand risk and encourage disclosure to FDMRs.

Latino Men and Familial Risk Communication About Prostate Cancer

“…Our study extends previous work on familial communication about risk and the importance of culture (Ola Bratt, Emanuelsson, & Grönberg, 2003; Christophe, Vennin, Corbeil, Adenis, & Reich, 2009; Harris et al, 2010; Lagos et al, 2008; Palmquist et al, 2010; Shaw, Scott, & Ferrante, 2013; Vadaparampil, McIntyre, & Quinn, 2010; Wakefield et al, 2008). It follows up on our work with men with PCa about their disclosure patterns and communication with unaffected FDMRs (Maliski et al, 2012). Finally, there is a dearth of research specific to Latinos and prostate cancer despite the disparities observed in screening and stage at diagnosis which needs to be addressed.…”

“…Maliski et al (2012) found that men affected by PCa with FDMRs hoped to communicate the importance of early detection to their FDMRs, but were highly selective about the depth of information disclosed, even to their adult children. They also stated they appreciated “respectful silence” from their relatives because they considered PCa an intimate issue.…”

“…These men were recruited through community advertisements. The analysis of data from men diagnosed with PCa focused on disclosure networks and was reported previously in this journal (Maliski et al, 2012). …”

“…The team used broad a priori codes to assess sons’ general knowledge of screening practices and familial risk. These two a priori topical codes were determined based on the previous analysis of data from men with prostate cancer with FDMRs (Maliski et al, 2012). These men expressed a great desire to promote screening by their FDMRs.…”

“…The research team’s previous work with men affected by PCa sensitized us to the complex role affected men play in informing first degree relatives, particularly sons, about increased risk and early detection (Maliski, Connor, & Litwin, 2012). Using interviews the research team focused on familial risk awareness, screening knowledge, and protective actions of unaffected sons of PCa survivors.…”