Search

Purpose: To synthesise findings from published studies on barriers and facilitators to Black men accessing and utilising post-treatment psychosocial support after prostate cancer (CaP) treatment. Methods: Searches of Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Central, CINAHL plus and Scopus were undertaken from inception to May 2021. English language studies involving Black men aged ≥18 and reporting experiences of, or suggestions for, psychosocial support after CaP treatment were included. Low or moderate quality studies were excluded. Searches identified 4,453 articles and following deduplication, 2,325 were screened for eligibility. Two independent reviewers carried out screening, quality appraisal and data extraction. Data were analysed using thematic synthesis. Results: Ten qualitative studies involving 139 Black men were included. Data analysis identified four analytical constructs: experience of psychosocial support for dealing with treatment side effects (including impact on self-esteem and fear of recurrence); barriers to use of psychosocial support (such as perceptions of masculinity and stigma around sexual dysfunction); facilitators to use of psychosocial support (including the influence of others and self-motivation); and practical solutions for designing and delivering post-treatment psychosocial support (the need for trusted healthcare and cultural channels). Conclusions: Few intervention studies have focused on behaviours among Black CaP survivors, with existing research predominantly involving Caucasian men. There is a need for a collaborative approach to CaP care that recognises not only medical expertise but also the autonomy of Black men as experts of their illness experience, and the influence of cultural and social networks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There has been increasing evidence and debate on palliative care research priorities and the international research agenda. To date, however, there is a lack of synthesis of this evidence, examining commonalities, differences, and gaps. To identify and synthesize literature on international palliative care research priorities originating from Western countries mapped to a quality assessment framework. Methods: A systematic review of several academic and grey databases were searched from January 2008–June 2019 for studies eliciting research priorities in palliative care in English. Two researchers independently reviewed, critically appraised, and conducted data extraction and synthesis. Results: The search yielded 10,235 articles (academic databases, n = 4108; grey literature, n = 6127), of which ten were included for appraisal and review. Priority areas were identified: service models; continuity of care; training and education; inequality; communication; living well and independently; and recognising family/carer needs and the importance of families. Methodological approaches and process of reporting varied. There was little representation of patient and caregiver driven agendas. The priorities were mapped to the Donabedian framework for assessing quality reflecting structure, process and outcomes and key priority areas. Conclusions: Limited evidence exists pertaining to research priorities across palliative care. Whilst a broad range of topics were elicited, approaches and samples varied questioning the credibility of findings. The voice of the care provider dominated, calling for more inclusive means to capture the patient and family voice. The findings of this study may serve as a template to understand the commonalities of research, identify gaps, and extend the palliative care research agenda. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Access and recruitment barriers may have contributed to the underrepresentation of Black African/Caribbean men and their partners in current psychosocial research related to prostate cancer survivors. Whilst some studies have explored recruitment barriers and facilitators from participants' perspectives, little is known from researchers' point of view. This paper aimed to address this gap in the literature. Recruitment strategies included the following: cancer support groups, researchers' networks, media advertisement, religious organisations, National Health Service hospitals and snowball sampling. Thirty‐six eligible participants (men = 25, partners = 11) were recruited into the study. Recruitment barriers comprised of gate‐keeping and advertisement issues and the stigma associated with prostate cancer disclosure. Facilitators which aided recruitment included collaborating with National Health Service hospitals, snowball sampling, flexible data collection, building rapport with participants to gain their trust and researcher's attributes. Findings highlight that "hard to reach" Black African/Caribbean populations may be more accessible if researchers adopt flexible but strategic and culturally sensitive recruitment approaches. Such approaches should consider perceptions of stigma associated with prostate cancer within these communities and the influence gatekeepers can have in controlling access to potential participants. Increased engagement with healthcare professionals and gatekeepers could facilitate better access to Black African/Caribbean populations so that their voices can be heard and their specific needs addressed within the healthcare agenda. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]