ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2017
Prostate Cancer Ambassadors: Enhancing a Theory-Informed Training Program for Informed Decision-Making.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- System dynamics modelling methods for public health policy evaluation: a systematic literature review focussing on mental health and substance use disorders.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- Feasibility of Establishing Community Living Labs (CoLLabs) to Improve Access to Prostate Health Resources, Education, Amenities, and Community Health: Protocol for a Pragmatic Clinical Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Prostate Cancer Ambassadors: Process and Outcomes of a Prostate Cancer Informed Decision-Making Training Program.American journal of men's health · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Despite the high burden of prostate cancer in African American communities, there is a paucity of knowledge about prostate health. This paper describes the enhancement of a curriculum for training lay health advisors, called prostate cancer ambassadors, on informed decision-making for prostate cancer screening. Adult learning theory informed the structuring of the training sessions to be interactive, self-directed, and engaging. Trainings were developed in a manner that made the material relevant to the learners and encouraged co-learning. The research team developed strategies, such as using discussions and interactive activities, to help community members weigh the pros and cons of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening and to make an informed decision about screening. Furthermore, activities were developed to bolster four social cognitive theory constructs: observational learning, self-efficacy for presenting information to the community and for making an informed decision themselves, collective efficacy for presenting information to the community, and outcome expectations from those presentations. Games, discussions, and debates were included to make learning fun and encourage discovery. Practice sessions and team-building activities were designed to build self-efficacy for sharing information about informed decision-making. Topics added to the original curriculum included updates on prostate cancer screening, informed decision-making for screening, skills for being a lay health advisor, and ethics. This dynamic model and approach to lay health advisor (ambassador) training is flexible: while it was tailored for use with prostate cancer education, it can be adjusted for use with other types of cancer and even other diseases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.