Author/year . | Methods . | Findings . | Sex and gender . |
---|---|---|---|
Reviews | |||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Empirical studies | |||
|
|
| No explicit discussion of sex or gender. The authors recommended future work involve female spouses in CRC education for men. Highlighted limits of written health promotion materials in the context of effectively targeting older men |
Allen et al.(Allen et al., 2007)African American men’s perceptions about prostate cancer: implications for designing educational interventions Social Science & Medicine, 64, 11 | Methods: Qualitative Sample: Focus group interviews with 37 US-based healthy African American men and 14 prostate cancer survivors. Fourteen key community informants were also interviewed Procedure: The three subgroups were compared to evaluate their knowledge about the prostate, elevated prostate cancer risk among African American men, and controversies about screening | Participants who were prostate cancer survivors had greater knowledge about prostate cancer than healthy men. Barriers highlighted by key informants and the healthy men cohort cited inadequate access to services, mistrust of the health system, poor relationships with providers and threats to male sexuality as the underpinnings of African American men’s low levels of knowledge | Findings were discussed in terms of gender and prostate cancer perceived as a threat to male identityImplicit was the need to level hierarchies to waylay top down approaches to HL. Instead, shared decision-making interventions were argued for, inclusive of African American providers while acknowledging the role of prostate cancer survivors in educating peers |
|
| Statistically significant differences in men’s lower HL and CRC scores were found compared to women. In contrast advancing age and being male were predictors of FOBT intention, and men were 1.7 times more likely than women to respond that they intended to have a colonoscopy in the next 6 months |
|
|
| Almost half of male participants (47.5%) had poor health literacy. Findings indicated that women and men differed in risk for low health literacy in old age, with predictors unique to each sex. Men’s health literacy pathway was complex and includes cognitive decline in later life, which was not found with women |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| HL-specific findings indicated that biomedical risk discourses and diagnostic measures including Gleason scores and PSA numbers were used to make treatment decisions. Understood also by participants was that these biomarkers were complex and their own experience may not reflect population-based statistics. The contextual use of health literacy and numeracy in this regard was mobilized by the men’s interactions at the PCSGs | The findings that men could increase HL within community-based PCSGs through other men as well as health care professionals presenting materials at the groups was linked to gendered understandings of men’s health. Specifically, the learnings at PCSGs ran counter to assertions that men are estranged from self-health and subordinate and marginalized in patient–provider interactions |
|
| Formal comparison by sex, SES and participation in a CRC program. Findings indicated that CRC screening knowledge and beliefs about the disease were increased by program participation. However low SES was linked to HL issues and those factors along with being male were barriers to program participation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Partnerships within social and information networks were reported as crucial to men in understanding prostate cancer. They suggested the existence of affective and spiritual aspects of prostate cancer information shape how older men receive, live and deal with their health and illness. Highlighted the need to overcome two major barriers; professional medical language and the silence among men, in refuting linkages between men's formal education and health literacy levels | Rich description of men’s strategies for obtaining information to deal with prostate cancer. While challenges to traditional HL definitions were made and assertions that family and community organizations were key resources for men’s HL no explicit linkages to gender of sex analyses were made |
Author/year . | Methods . | Findings . | Sex and gender . |
---|---|---|---|
Reviews | |||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Empirical studies | |||
|
|
| No explicit discussion of sex or gender. The authors recommended future work involve female spouses in CRC education for men. Highlighted limits of written health promotion materials in the context of effectively targeting older men |
Allen et al.(Allen et al., 2007)African American men’s perceptions about prostate cancer: implications for designing educational interventions Social Science & Medicine, 64, 11 | Methods: Qualitative Sample: Focus group interviews with 37 US-based healthy African American men and 14 prostate cancer survivors. Fourteen key community informants were also interviewed Procedure: The three subgroups were compared to evaluate their knowledge about the prostate, elevated prostate cancer risk among African American men, and controversies about screening | Participants who were prostate cancer survivors had greater knowledge about prostate cancer than healthy men. Barriers highlighted by key informants and the healthy men cohort cited inadequate access to services, mistrust of the health system, poor relationships with providers and threats to male sexuality as the underpinnings of African American men’s low levels of knowledge | Findings were discussed in terms of gender and prostate cancer perceived as a threat to male identityImplicit was the need to level hierarchies to waylay top down approaches to HL. Instead, shared decision-making interventions were argued for, inclusive of African American providers while acknowledging the role of prostate cancer survivors in educating peers |
|
| Statistically significant differences in men’s lower HL and CRC scores were found compared to women. In contrast advancing age and being male were predictors of FOBT intention, and men were 1.7 times more likely than women to respond that they intended to have a colonoscopy in the next 6 months |
|
|
| Almost half of male participants (47.5%) had poor health literacy. Findings indicated that women and men differed in risk for low health literacy in old age, with predictors unique to each sex. Men’s health literacy pathway was complex and includes cognitive decline in later life, which was not found with women |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| HL-specific findings indicated that biomedical risk discourses and diagnostic measures including Gleason scores and PSA numbers were used to make treatment decisions. Understood also by participants was that these biomarkers were complex and their own experience may not reflect population-based statistics. The contextual use of health literacy and numeracy in this regard was mobilized by the men’s interactions at the PCSGs | The findings that men could increase HL within community-based PCSGs through other men as well as health care professionals presenting materials at the groups was linked to gendered understandings of men’s health. Specifically, the learnings at PCSGs ran counter to assertions that men are estranged from self-health and subordinate and marginalized in patient–provider interactions |
|
| Formal comparison by sex, SES and participation in a CRC program. Findings indicated that CRC screening knowledge and beliefs about the disease were increased by program participation. However low SES was linked to HL issues and those factors along with being male were barriers to program participation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Partnerships within social and information networks were reported as crucial to men in understanding prostate cancer. They suggested the existence of affective and spiritual aspects of prostate cancer information shape how older men receive, live and deal with their health and illness. Highlighted the need to overcome two major barriers; professional medical language and the silence among men, in refuting linkages between men's formal education and health literacy levels | Rich description of men’s strategies for obtaining information to deal with prostate cancer. While challenges to traditional HL definitions were made and assertions that family and community organizations were key resources for men’s HL no explicit linkages to gender of sex analyses were made |
CRC, colorectal cancer; FOBT, fecal occult blood test; HL, health literacy; PCSG, prostate cancer support group.
Author/year . | Methods . | Findings . | Sex and gender . |
---|---|---|---|
Reviews | |||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Empirical studies | |||
|
|
| No explicit discussion of sex or gender. The authors recommended future work involve female spouses in CRC education for men. Highlighted limits of written health promotion materials in the context of effectively targeting older men |
Allen et al.(Allen et al., 2007)African American men’s perceptions about prostate cancer: implications for designing educational interventions Social Science & Medicine, 64, 11 | Methods: Qualitative Sample: Focus group interviews with 37 US-based healthy African American men and 14 prostate cancer survivors. Fourteen key community informants were also interviewed Procedure: The three subgroups were compared to evaluate their knowledge about the prostate, elevated prostate cancer risk among African American men, and controversies about screening | Participants who were prostate cancer survivors had greater knowledge about prostate cancer than healthy men. Barriers highlighted by key informants and the healthy men cohort cited inadequate access to services, mistrust of the health system, poor relationships with providers and threats to male sexuality as the underpinnings of African American men’s low levels of knowledge | Findings were discussed in terms of gender and prostate cancer perceived as a threat to male identityImplicit was the need to level hierarchies to waylay top down approaches to HL. Instead, shared decision-making interventions were argued for, inclusive of African American providers while acknowledging the role of prostate cancer survivors in educating peers |
|
| Statistically significant differences in men’s lower HL and CRC scores were found compared to women. In contrast advancing age and being male were predictors of FOBT intention, and men were 1.7 times more likely than women to respond that they intended to have a colonoscopy in the next 6 months |
|
|
| Almost half of male participants (47.5%) had poor health literacy. Findings indicated that women and men differed in risk for low health literacy in old age, with predictors unique to each sex. Men’s health literacy pathway was complex and includes cognitive decline in later life, which was not found with women |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| HL-specific findings indicated that biomedical risk discourses and diagnostic measures including Gleason scores and PSA numbers were used to make treatment decisions. Understood also by participants was that these biomarkers were complex and their own experience may not reflect population-based statistics. The contextual use of health literacy and numeracy in this regard was mobilized by the men’s interactions at the PCSGs | The findings that men could increase HL within community-based PCSGs through other men as well as health care professionals presenting materials at the groups was linked to gendered understandings of men’s health. Specifically, the learnings at PCSGs ran counter to assertions that men are estranged from self-health and subordinate and marginalized in patient–provider interactions |
|
| Formal comparison by sex, SES and participation in a CRC program. Findings indicated that CRC screening knowledge and beliefs about the disease were increased by program participation. However low SES was linked to HL issues and those factors along with being male were barriers to program participation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Partnerships within social and information networks were reported as crucial to men in understanding prostate cancer. They suggested the existence of affective and spiritual aspects of prostate cancer information shape how older men receive, live and deal with their health and illness. Highlighted the need to overcome two major barriers; professional medical language and the silence among men, in refuting linkages between men's formal education and health literacy levels | Rich description of men’s strategies for obtaining information to deal with prostate cancer. While challenges to traditional HL definitions were made and assertions that family and community organizations were key resources for men’s HL no explicit linkages to gender of sex analyses were made |
Author/year . | Methods . | Findings . | Sex and gender . |
---|---|---|---|
Reviews | |||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Empirical studies | |||
|
|
| No explicit discussion of sex or gender. The authors recommended future work involve female spouses in CRC education for men. Highlighted limits of written health promotion materials in the context of effectively targeting older men |
Allen et al.(Allen et al., 2007)African American men’s perceptions about prostate cancer: implications for designing educational interventions Social Science & Medicine, 64, 11 | Methods: Qualitative Sample: Focus group interviews with 37 US-based healthy African American men and 14 prostate cancer survivors. Fourteen key community informants were also interviewed Procedure: The three subgroups were compared to evaluate their knowledge about the prostate, elevated prostate cancer risk among African American men, and controversies about screening | Participants who were prostate cancer survivors had greater knowledge about prostate cancer than healthy men. Barriers highlighted by key informants and the healthy men cohort cited inadequate access to services, mistrust of the health system, poor relationships with providers and threats to male sexuality as the underpinnings of African American men’s low levels of knowledge | Findings were discussed in terms of gender and prostate cancer perceived as a threat to male identityImplicit was the need to level hierarchies to waylay top down approaches to HL. Instead, shared decision-making interventions were argued for, inclusive of African American providers while acknowledging the role of prostate cancer survivors in educating peers |
|
| Statistically significant differences in men’s lower HL and CRC scores were found compared to women. In contrast advancing age and being male were predictors of FOBT intention, and men were 1.7 times more likely than women to respond that they intended to have a colonoscopy in the next 6 months |
|
|
| Almost half of male participants (47.5%) had poor health literacy. Findings indicated that women and men differed in risk for low health literacy in old age, with predictors unique to each sex. Men’s health literacy pathway was complex and includes cognitive decline in later life, which was not found with women |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| HL-specific findings indicated that biomedical risk discourses and diagnostic measures including Gleason scores and PSA numbers were used to make treatment decisions. Understood also by participants was that these biomarkers were complex and their own experience may not reflect population-based statistics. The contextual use of health literacy and numeracy in this regard was mobilized by the men’s interactions at the PCSGs | The findings that men could increase HL within community-based PCSGs through other men as well as health care professionals presenting materials at the groups was linked to gendered understandings of men’s health. Specifically, the learnings at PCSGs ran counter to assertions that men are estranged from self-health and subordinate and marginalized in patient–provider interactions |
|
| Formal comparison by sex, SES and participation in a CRC program. Findings indicated that CRC screening knowledge and beliefs about the disease were increased by program participation. However low SES was linked to HL issues and those factors along with being male were barriers to program participation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Partnerships within social and information networks were reported as crucial to men in understanding prostate cancer. They suggested the existence of affective and spiritual aspects of prostate cancer information shape how older men receive, live and deal with their health and illness. Highlighted the need to overcome two major barriers; professional medical language and the silence among men, in refuting linkages between men's formal education and health literacy levels | Rich description of men’s strategies for obtaining information to deal with prostate cancer. While challenges to traditional HL definitions were made and assertions that family and community organizations were key resources for men’s HL no explicit linkages to gender of sex analyses were made |
CRC, colorectal cancer; FOBT, fecal occult blood test; HL, health literacy; PCSG, prostate cancer support group.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
View Article Abstract & Purchase OptionsFor full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.