ArticlePatient education and counseling2026
Community voices, strategies to improve understanding, and access to prostate cancer genomic testing.
Article in Patient education and counseling, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesCommunity voices highlight opportunities to improve understanding and access to prostate cancer genomic testing; however, uptake remains limited, particularly among racially and geographically diverse populations. This study explored community perceptions of prostate cancer genomic testing and identified barriers, facilitators, and communication priorities to inform culturally responsive, literacy-sensitive education strategies. In this study, we focus specifically on tissue-based genomic testing used to inform treatment decision-making, rather than cancer screening or inherited genetic risk assessment.
methodsWe conducted a qualitative, phenomenological study using a community-based participatory research approach with multi-site Community Advisory Boards (CABs) in Florida, Arizona, and Minnesota (June 2023-March 2024). Across eight focus groups, 31 participants, including prostate cancer survivors, caregivers, clinicians, and community advocates, shared perspectives on genomic testing and preferences for educational materials. Discussions were conducted in English, audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis guided by Braun and Clarke's six-phase approach.
resultsParticipants demonstrated limited awareness of genomic testing and frequently conflated it with ancestry or hereditary testing. Engagement was shaped by fear, stigma, masculine identity norms, and structural barriers, including cost and healthcare access. Caregivers were described as central to decision-making, while trust in information sources strongly influenced receptivity to genomic testing. Participants emphasized the need for clear, culturally relevant communication delivered by trusted community messengers and supported by family-inclusive approaches.
conclusionsCommunity perspectives suggest that improving access to prostate cancer genomic testing requires more than increasing availability; it requires addressing gaps in understanding, trust, and structural access. Community-informed, culturally grounded strategies may support more equitable implementation of precision oncology.
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.