"Hard to reach, but not out of reach": Barriers and facilitators to recruiting Black African and Black Caribbean men with prostate cancer and their partners into qualitative research.

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.

Risk and presenting features of prostate cancer amongst African-Caribbean, South Asian and European men in North-east London.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there are ethnic differences in the incidence and presenting features of all patients with prostate cancer presenting in North-east London, UK. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All newly diagnosed men with prostate cancer between 1999 and 2000 who were resident in the East London and City Health Authority were identified from various sources. Key clinical features were extracted from hospital records. The age-adjusted incidence rates for European, South Asian and African-Caribbean patients were calculated using census denominator data. RESULTS: For men aged >50 years the annual age-adjusted incidence rates (95% confidence interval) were 213 (186-240), 647 (504-789) and 199 (85-310) for the European, African-Caribbean and South Asian patients, respectively. African-Caribbean men had a three times greater risk (risk ratio 3.07, 2.40-3.93, P < 0.001) than European men. South Asian men had a lower risk of prostate cancer but this could have been compatible with chance. There was no evidence of marked ethnic differences for prostate-specific antigen levels, clinical staging and Gleason scores. CONCLUSION: The greater risk of prostate cancer for African-Caribbean men in South-east England is consistent with data from the USA and the Caribbean. Future work needs to determine whether this risk differs according to country of origin, and which genetic and/or environmental risk factors might be important in explaining these observations.