The traditional p value of .05 was not accomplished for most things
The standard p value of .05 was not achieved for most things, but final results demonstrating the greatest alterations from pre to posttest are discussed. Qualitative responses in the prostate cancer education survey along with the videoconference preposttest measure were transcribed, compiled into a Word document, and examined for commonAuthor Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptJ Cancer Educ. Author manuscript; readily available in PMC 206 December 0.Jackson et al.Pagethemes. The overall outcomes examined have been feedback on program CC-115 (hydrochloride) manufacturer refinement, program satisfaction following plan refinement, and participants knowledge, attitudes, and or beliefs relative to prostate cancer IDM and analysis choice creating.Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptResultsProstate Cancer Education Plan Critique Initial Survey Results (Aim ) Quantitative ResultsThirty two AA males (n2) and females (n) with an typical age of 48.0 7.4 completed the survey. Over half (53 ) have been singlenever married though 32 had been married. Most (76 ) participants produced below 29,000 in household earnings annually with a lot of (35 ) producing much less than 0,000 per year. Most participants were employed (50 ) or retired (22 ) and had above a high school education (88 ). Additionally, 70 had access to either private or public well being insurance coverage. See Table for more participant demographics. Almost 85 felt that the current prostate cancer education content material may very well be understood by a lay person. Seventy percent also reported that the text on every slide was simple to study, but pretty much all the remaining respondents reported that they had been unsure. With regard to the format from the organization on the presentation, the majority of respondents (87 ) reported that the presentation had a natural flow. Qualitative ResultsParticipants were asked a series of openended concerns concerning the content, format, and cultural appropriateness in the current prostate cancer education system. When asked, “How can we enhance the data offered in the education system so that it might be understood by the average individual,” participants generally talked about clarifying some of the data, defining unknown terms, and utilizing plain language. Especially participants wrote, “what is selenium in addition to a mineral, not clear, must be explaineddefined,” and “explain [PSA] exam approach, what’s the procedure”. When PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28515341 asked, “How can we strengthen the text on each slide to be study by the typical person” participants stated this may be accomplished by enlarging the print, adding pictures, and which includes additional recent details. Especially participants wrote, “slide 6, smaller print and wordy”, a lot more up to date details it’s 204″, and “text could possibly be larger”. We also wanted to understand if the content with the presentation would be advantageous to each AA men and ladies wanting to discover additional concerning the prostate, prostate overall health, and prostate cancer. Participants have been asked about what varieties of info might have been missing from the education program. Subjects for which participants requested added details integrated: “more about screening”, “explain the exam process”, “more information on results of waiting vs. remedy, and “information on resources”. Ultimately, we wanted to know if participants believed that a man would have enough data (after completing this education plan) to create an informed choice about prostate cancer screening. Most participants felt that t.
