Tumor Genomic Pre-test Counseling Tool for Black or African-American Men With Prostate Cancer

Frequency of participant responses (Stage 1)

Participant-reported perspectives of intervention in a semi-structured interview will be collected during Stage 1 and reviewed and will be explored using thematic analysis. A codebook will be created using the PEMAT (for the primary objective) described in the interview guide. This framework provides a systematic approach for identifying behavior change models evaluated according to three criteria: comprehensiveness, coherence, and a clear link to an overarching model of behavior. This will produce evidence-based behavior change techniques most likely to be effective. Emergent codes and themes will be added throughout thematic analysis. Two coders will code each interview (one primary and one secondary coder). Discrepancies will be negotiated to consensus.

Proportion of enrolled participants (Stage 2)

The proportion of participants who enrolled in the study after being approached by their healthcare team will be reported.

Proportion of enrolled participants who review all educational materials (Stage 2)

The proportion of all enrolled participants who utilized and reviewed all of the educational materials in the tool will be reported.

Mean score of Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM) (Stage 2)

Scores on the FIM will be averaged across all participants. Items will be scored on a 5-point scale: 1= Completely disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 4 = Agree, 5= Completely agree. A higher mean score indicates greater feasibility. The mean score and standard deviation will be reported.

Mean score of Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM) (Stage 2)

Scores on the AIM items will be averaged across all participants. Items will be scored on a 5-point scale: 1= Completely disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 4 = Agree, 5= Completely agree. A higher mean score indicates greater feasibility. The mean score and standard deviation will be reported.

Mean score of investigator-developed, measure of acceptability items (Stage 2)

Scores on the 5-item investigator-developed, measure of acceptability will be scored on a 5-point scale: 1= Completely disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 4 = Agree, 5= Completely agree. A higher mean score indicates greater feasibility. The mean score and standard deviation will be reported. However, responses will not be averaged to across items; each item will be analyzed independently.

Mean score of cancer genomic testing knowledge (Stage 2)

Knowledge of tumor genetic testing adapted from a validated survey from Blanchette, et al.+ select questions from a survey from Rogith, et al.will be utilized to measure the level of cancer genomic testing knowledge. "Don't know" will be scored as incorrect. The proportion of correct responses will be calculated to generate a total score between 0-100, with a higher score indicating greater knowledge. No items will be weighted. Since all items are required, we anticipate missing responses will be rare. Any missing data will be managed case-by-case post-hoc.

Proportion of participants who select correct response in each genomic testing knowledge instrument item (Stage 2)

Knowledge of tumor genetic testing adapted from a validated survey from Blanchette, et al. including select questions from a survey from Rogith, et al. and is designed to measure the level of cancer genomic testing knowledge. Responses of "Don't know" will be scored as incorrect. Each of the item scores will be reported as a proportion of the participants who answered each item correctly. Since all items are required, we anticipate missing responses will be rare. Any missing data will be managed case-by-case post-hoc.