Black men are diagnosed with prostate cancer at nearly twice the rate of white men and are underrepresented in prostate cancer research, including validation studies of new clinical tools (e.g., genomic testing). Because healthcare system mistrust has contributed to these disparities for centuries, black men may be less inclined to pursue novel testing, and identification of facilitators to their participation in prostate cancer research studies remains warranted. A community-engaged approach involving a partnership with a community organization was used to conduct seven focus groups in Minnesota, Alabama, and California to explore black men's attitudes toward prostate cancer research participation and genomic testing for prostate cancer. Data were collected and analyzed from April 2015 to April 2017. Identified genomic testing barriers included a lack of terminology understanding, healthcare system mistrust, reluctance to seek medical care, and unfavorable attitudes toward research. Facilitators included family history, value of prevention, and the desire for health education. Lack of prostate cancer knowledge, prostate-specific antigen testing confusion, healthcare system distrust, and misuse of personal health information were barriers to research study participation. Some black men were motivated to participate in research if it was seen as constructive and transparent. Disparities for black men can both motivate and disincentivize participation depending upon a positive or negative view of research. Confusion over prostate cancer clinical care has fueled some mistrust among black men affecting both clinical care and research participation. With increased education, health literacy, and assurances of research integrity and transparency, black men may be more willing to participate in prostate cancer testing and research. This article is part of a supplement entitled African American Men's Health: Research, Practice, and Policy Implications, which is sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is highly preventable when CRC screening is utilized, yet CRC screening completion among African American men is relatively low and their mortality rates remain 50% higher juxtaposed to their White counterparts. Since a growing body of literature indicates masculinity, racism, and social support each have strong influences on CRC screening uptake, this systematic review examined the connections between these three sociocultural factors and CRC screening uptake among African American men. Potential studies were retrieved from MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and PsycINFO. Cited reference searching for the final sample was employed to identify and assess additional studies for inclusion using Scopus. The methodological quality of the reviewed evidence was also evaluated. Nineteen studies met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Thirteen studies employed nonexperimental research designs; a quasi-experimental design was present in four, and two utilized experimental designs. Studies were published between 2000 and 2014; the majority between 2009 and 2013. Social support was most frequently addressed (84%) while masculinity and racism were equally studied with paucity (11%) for their influence on CRC screening. After evaluating conceptual and methodological characteristics of the studies, 42% fell below average in quality and rigor. The need for increased attention to the sociocultural correlates of CRC screening for African American men are highlighted in this systematic review, and important recommendations for research and practice are provided. Alongside a call for more rigorous research, further research examining the influence of masculinity and racism on CRC screening completion among African American men is warranted.

As leaders with the American Society of Preventive Oncology (ASPO) Cancer Health Disparities Special Interest Group, we describe the role of structural racism in perpetuating cancer health inequity historically, and potential implications of COVID-19 in exacerbating the effects of structural racism on patients with cancer seeking screening, diagnostic care, treatment, and survivorship support. As a strategy to reduce cancer inequities in the United States, we provide the following calls to action for cancer researchers to help alleviate the burden of structural racism: (i) identify and name structural racism while describing its operation within all aspects of scientific research; (ii) comprehensively integrate discussions on structural racism into teaching, mentoring, and service activities; and (iii) understand and support community actions to address structural racism.

Despite having the highest colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality across all major racial/ethnic groups, African-American men consistently have poor CRC screening rates. Gendered and racia...

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. 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. 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). 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.