Knowledge, Perception and Utilisation Of Prostate Cancer Screening Services Among Secondary School Male Teachers in Ibeju-Lekki Local Government Area, Lagos State

Otun Bolanle 131 PAGES (34422 WORDS) Dissertation
Subscribe to access this work and thousands more

ABSTRACT

Prostate cancer (PC) is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among Nigerian men; yet screening for early detection of the disease is not a common practice. Few studies have documented prostate cancer screening practices and its antecedents among Nigerian men. This study therefore investigated the knowledge and perception of PC and utilisation of prostate cancer screening services among secondary school male teachers in Ibeju-Lekki Local Government Area (ILGA), Lagos State.


A descriptive cross-sectional survey was conducted among 338 consenting male teachers out of a total of 395 in all secondary schools in ILGA. A validated self-administered semi-structured questionnaire used for data collection included a 39-point knowledge and 34-point perception scales, questions on perceived susceptibility, screening practices and willingness to undertake PC screening. Knowledge scores ≤13, 13-26 and ≥26 were classified as poor, fair and good respectively. Perception scores ≤16 and ≥16 were categorised as negative and positive perception respectively. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, t-test, Chi-square test and logistic regression at p=0.05.


Respondents’ mean age was 33.5±7.3 years, 60.4% were Christians, 80.8% were Yoruba and 48.8% were married. Many (61.5%) respondents had bachelor degree. Most (60.9%) respondents had heard about PC and only 27.5% recognised PC as leading cause of cancer-related death among Nigerian men. About a quarter of respondents (25.7%) correctly identified location of the prostate gland, and 47% knew it affects only men. Almost half (48.2%) and 44.1% identified alcohol and tobacco use as main risk factors. More (52.4%) respondents correctly affirmed swelling of the prostate gland as the main symptom of prostate cancer and 55.9% knew surgery/radiotherapy prevent prostate cancer progression. About one-third (34%) identified regular exercise as a risk-reduction strategy for PC. Mean knowledge score was 13.4±9.0; respondents with poor, fair and good knowledge of PC were 52.7%, 36.1% and 11.2% respectively. Mean perception score was 13.8±8; respondents with negative and positive perception towards PC were 60.7% and 39.3% respectively.  Most 92.3% respondents did not perceive themselves susceptibility to PC. Few (1.5%) reportedly had prostate condition, while only 23.1% perceived PC as very serious. Majority (79.6%) had never heard about PC screening. Only a few (1.2%) had utilised PC screening services. Major barriers to utilisation were insufficient knowledge about PC (59.2%) and 58.0% were willing to utilise the screening service in the future. There was a significant difference in mean knowledge scores of respondents from private schools 15.5±9.8 compared with those from public schools 11.3±7.5. There was also a significant association between respondents’ educational qualification and PC-related knowledge, Respondents that had good knowledge were one time less likely to have poor PC-related knowledge, (OR: 0.1, 95% CI: 0.0-0.3) and one time less likely to have negative perception towards PC, (OR:0.6, 95% CI: 0.4-0.8). 


Prostate cancer-related knowledge and perceived risk of susceptibility were low, although most respondents were willing to utilise the screening services in the future. Health education interventions such as enlightenment campaign, training and seminars would be useful in addressing these gaps.


Keywords: Prostate cancer knowledge, Perception, Susceptibility, Utilisation of screening services

Word count: 488

TABLE OF CONTENT

Section Page

Title page i

Dedication ii

Abstract iii

Acknowledge v

Certification vi

Table of Content vii

List of Figures x

List of Tables xi

Glossary of Abbreviations xii


CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background information 1

1.2 Statement of the problem 2

1.3 Justification and rationale of the study 4

1.4 Research Questions 5

1.5 General objectives of the study 5

1.6 Specific objectives 5

1.7 Hypothesis 6

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 7

2.1 Cancer of the Prostate 7

2.2 Risk and predisposing factors for prostate cancer 11

2.3 Causes of Prostate Cancer 15

2.4 Health promotion intervention for Prostate cancer 17

2.4.1 Primary prevention: lifestyle adjustments 18

2.4.2 Primary prevention through screening for early detection of the disease 19

2.4.3 Screening tests / method 21

2.4.4 Risk associated with screening 22

2.4.5 PSA Test (Prostate-Specific Antigen) 22

2.4.6 DRE (Digital Rectal Examination) 23

2.4.7 Trans Rectal Ultrasound (TRUS) 23

2.4.8 Prostate Biopsy 24

2.4.9 Other imaging tests 24

2.5 Tumour Characteristics and Tumour Grade 24

2.5.1 High-Grade Cancer 25

2.5.2 Tumour Stage 25

2.6 Secondary prevention:  Treating Prostate Cancer 26

2.7 Tertiary prevention:  Management of prostate cancer 28

2.8 Incidence and prevalence of prostate cancer 29

2.9 Prostate cancer awareness 32

2.10 Knowledge of Prostate Cancer, risk factors, sign and symptoms 33

2.11 Perception towards Prostate Cancer 34

2.12 Perceived risk factors and perceived susceptibility towards prostate cancer 36

2.13 Prostate cancer screening awareness 38

2.14 Utilisation of prostate cancer screening services and future willingness 

to utilise the screening services 39

2.15 Factors influencing the prostate cancer screening 40

2.16 Benefits for undertaking prostate cancer screening 41

2.17 Barriers/hindering factors to utilisation prostate cancer screening services 42

2.18 Conceptual framework 42

2.14.1 Health Belief Model (HBM) 42


CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 46

3.1 Research Design 46

3.2 Independent and dependent variables 46

3.3 Description of study location 46 

3.3.2 Location and Size 47

3.3.3 Description of the study site 48

3.4 Study Population 48

3.5 Sampling procedure 49

3.6 Instrument development 50

3.7 Validity and reliability 50

3.8 Methods of data collection 51

3.9 Data processing and Analysis 51

3.10 Ethical consideration 52

3. 11 Limitation of study 52


CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS 53

4.1 Socio-Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents 54

4.2 Awareness on prostate cancer and related knowledge 57

4.3 Knowledge on prostate cancer 59

4.4 Perception of prostate cancer 68

4.5 Perceived risk factors and perceived susceptibility towards prostate cancer 71

4.6 Awareness on prostate cancer screening and utilisation of the services 79

4.7 Willingness to utilise prostate cancer screening services in the future 81

4.8 Suggested ways for improving teachers’ participation in prostate cancer screening    87

4.9 TEST OF HYPOTHESES 90

4.9.1 Hypothesis one 90

4.9.2 Hypothesis two 93

4.9.3 Hypothesis three 97

4.9.4 Hypothesis four 101

4.9.5 Hypothesis five 107

4.9.6 Hypothesis six 109


CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION 111

5.1 Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents 111

5.2 Knowledge on prostate cancer 111

5.3 Perception of prostate cancer 113

5.4 Perceived risk factors and perceived susceptibility towards prostate cancer 114

5.5 Utilisation of prostate screening services 114

5.6 Willingness to utilise prostate cancer screening services in the future 115

Conclusion 116

Health education implication 117

Recommendation 118

Suggestion for further studies 118

REFERENCES 119

Appendix 1 128



LIST OF TABLES

page

Table 4.1 Socio-Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents 54

Table 4.2 Location of prostate gland 60

Table 4.3 Response on predisposing risk factors 63

Table 4.4 Response on Sign and symptoms associated with prostate cancer 65

Table 4.5 Response on treatment and prevention modality 67

Table 4.6 Response on Perception of prostate cancer 69

Table 4.7 Response on Perceived risk factors of prostate cancer 72

Table 4.8 Response on Signs and symptoms experienced by the respondents 75

Table 4.9 Response on perceived susceptibility towards prostate cancer 77

Table 4.10 Perceived susceptibility towards prostate categorization 78

Table 4.11 Respondents’ Sources of information on prostate cancer screening 80

Table 4.12 Respondent’s influencing factors to undertake prostate cancer screening 82

Table 4.13 Respondents’ reasons to undertake prostate cancer screening 83

Table 4.14 Reason why respondents won’t undertake screening 85

Table 4.15 Respondents’ Factors Prevent Undertaking Screening 86

Table 4.16 Respondents’ Suggested ways for improving teachers’ participation 

in prostate cancer screening 88

Table 4.17 Differences in the mean knowledge score on prostate cancer 

between male teachers in private secondary schools and male 

teachers in public secondary schools. 91

Table 4.18 Logic regression to explore the strength of the association 

between respondents’ prostate cancer related knowledge and school type 92


Table 4.19 Relationship between prostate cancers related knowledge and

perceived susceptibility towards prostate cancer 94

Table 4.20 Logic regression to explore the strength of the association between 

prostate cancers related knowledge and perceived 

susceptibility towards prostate cancer 96

Table 4.21 There is no significant relation between prostate cancers related 

knowledge perception of prostate cancer 98

Table 4.22 Logic regression to explore the strength of the association 

between respondents’ prostate cancers related knowledge and 

perception of prostate cancer 100

Table 4.23 Relationship between demographic variables (age, discipline, highest 

education qualification and position in school) and related prostate 

cancer knowledge. 103

Table 4.24 Logic regression to explore the strength of association between 

variables (discipline, highest education qualification and position 

in school) and related prostate cancer knowledge 106

Table 4.25 Relationship between perceived susceptibility to prostate 

cancer and willingness to utilise prostate cancer screening services 108

Table 4.26 Relationship between demographic variables (ages, marital status, 

years in service and income) of the respondents and willingness 

to utilize prostate cancer screening services 110

       



Subscribe to access this work and thousands more
Overall Rating

0

5 Star
(0)
4 Star
(0)
3 Star
(0)
2 Star
(0)
1 Star
(0)
APA

Otun, B (2020). Knowledge, Perception and Utilisation Of Prostate Cancer Screening Services Among Secondary School Male Teachers in Ibeju-Lekki Local Government Area, Lagos State. Afribary.com: Retrieved September 18, 2020, from https://afribary.com/works/knowledge-perception-and-utilisation-of-postate-cancer-screening-services-among-secondary-school-male-teachers-in-ibeju-lekki-local-government-area-lagos-state

MLA 8th

Bolanle, Otun. "Knowledge, Perception and Utilisation Of Prostate Cancer Screening Services Among Secondary School Male Teachers in Ibeju-Lekki Local Government Area, Lagos State" Afribary.com. Afribary.com, 15 Sep. 2020, https://afribary.com/works/knowledge-perception-and-utilisation-of-postate-cancer-screening-services-among-secondary-school-male-teachers-in-ibeju-lekki-local-government-area-lagos-state . Accessed 18 Sep. 2020.

MLA7

Bolanle, Otun. "Knowledge, Perception and Utilisation Of Prostate Cancer Screening Services Among Secondary School Male Teachers in Ibeju-Lekki Local Government Area, Lagos State". Afribary.com, Afribary.com, 15 Sep. 2020. Web. 18 Sep. 2020. < https://afribary.com/works/knowledge-perception-and-utilisation-of-postate-cancer-screening-services-among-secondary-school-male-teachers-in-ibeju-lekki-local-government-area-lagos-state >.

Chicago

Bolanle, Otun. "Knowledge, Perception and Utilisation Of Prostate Cancer Screening Services Among Secondary School Male Teachers in Ibeju-Lekki Local Government Area, Lagos State" Afribary.com (2020). Accessed September 18, 2020. https://afribary.com/works/knowledge-perception-and-utilisation-of-postate-cancer-screening-services-among-secondary-school-male-teachers-in-ibeju-lekki-local-government-area-lagos-state