Browse

Journals By Subject

Life Sciences, Agriculture & Food
Chemistry
Medicine & Health
Materials Science
Mathematics & Physics
Electrical & Computer Science
Earth, Energy & Environment
Architecture & Civil Engineering
Education
Economics & Management
Humanities & Social Sciences
Multidisciplinary

Books

Publish Conference Abstract Books
Upcoming Conference Abstract Books
Published Conference Abstract Books
Publish Your Books
Upcoming Books
Published Books

Proceedings

Events

Events
Five Types of Conference Publications

Join

Join as Editorial Board Member
Become a Reviewer

Information

For Authors
For Reviewers
For Editors
For Conference Organizers
For Librarians
Article Processing Charges
Special Issue Guidelines
Editorial Process
Manuscript Transfers
Peer Review at SciencePG
Open Access
Copyright and License
Ethical Guidelines
Submit an Article
Research Article | | Peer-Reviewed

Factors Influencing Prostate Cancer Screening Among Men from Eastern Kenya

Joshua Mwangi*,  Okello Agina,  Isaac Mwanzo
Published in Central African Journal of Public Health (Volume 11, Issue 2)
Received: 1 February 2025     Accepted: 17 February 2025     Published: 18 March 2025
Views:       Downloads:
Download PDF
Abstract

Prostate cancer is the most prevalent urological cancer and causes a significant global health burden, especially in developed countries. It is the most frequently diagnosed cancer among men in more than half of the countries in the world. Early diagnosis minimizes complications and mortalities associated with it. In Kenya it is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among men and usually characterized with low rates of screening and late diagnosis. Several factors have been found to influence prostate cancer screening. This study sought to establish factors influencing prostate cancer screening in the rural settings of Tharaka Nithi County in Eastern Kenya. The study adopted cross-sectional design in which researcher-administered questionnaires were used to collect data. Multi-stage sampling was used to recruit 379 men who were 40 years old and above who participated in the study. Data analysis was done using the statistical package of Social Science version 22. Frequencies and percentages were used for data presentation. Chi square (χ2) and Fisher’s exact test were used test relationship between dependent and independent variables. P-value of <0.05 were used to declare factors as significantly associated with the outcome variable. Results showed that the awareness level of prostate cancer was high (85.2%) and screening levels for prostate cancer were low (4.5%). Factors found to be significantly associated with PCa testing were education level (Fisher's exact P< 0.001), awareness of PCa screening (Fisher's exact P=0.028), awareness of specific prostate cancer tests ( Fisher's exact p < 0.001), family history of prostate cancer (χ2 = 36.14, P< 0.001), cost of prostate cancer test (Fisher's exact p=0.001), insufficient information on PCa (χ2 = 13.55, p=0.001) and cultural factors (χ2 = 5.63, p=0.023). Conclusions: Although prostate cancer awareness level was high, prostate cancer screening rates were low among men from Tharaka Nithi County. Several factors influencing screening were identified, some of which were hindrances. There is therefore need for the county government to come up with appropriate strategies to address these hindrances and scale up screening services at the community level to facilitate early diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer.

Published in Central African Journal of Public Health (Volume 11, Issue 2)
DOI 10.11648/j.cajph.20251102.11
Page(s) 43-52
Creative Commons

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

Copyright

Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Science Publishing Group
Previous article
Keywords

Prostate Cancer, Screening Tests, Prostate-specific Antigen (PSA) Test, Community Units

1. Introduction
Prostate cancer is the most prevalent urological cancer and causes a significant global health burden, especially in developed countries
[1]
. It is the most frequently diagnosed cancer among men in more than half of the countries in the world (112 of 185 countries/territories), with an estimated 1.4 million new cases in 2020
[2]
. Its incidence rates vary widely across the world. Incidence rates are almost three times higher in transitioned than in transitioning countries (35.5 and 12.6 per 100,000, respectively), whereas the difference in mortality rates is much smaller (7.3 and 6.6 per 100,000, respectively)
[3]
.
In Africa, prostate cancer is the most prevalent male cancer both in incidence and mortality. According to the 2020 GLOBOCAN database, the highest incidence of cancer in Sub-Saharan Africa was prostate cancer (77,300 cases), followed by liver cancer (24,700 cases) and colorectal cancer (23,400 cases). Additionally, it was the leading cause of cancer-related deaths among men in the region
[4]
. Rapidly increasing trends in incidence and mortality from prostate cancer (PCa.) have been found in sub‐Saharan Africa, with annual increases reported in Southern and Eastern African countries from 1995 to 2018
[5]
. As a result of this, countries in these regions have started taking initiative to control the high incidence rates and this may primarily reflect the progressive increase in awareness and improvements in the respective healthcare systems that have permitted greater use of PSA testing and trans-urethral resections
[5]
.
In Kenya, non-communicable diseases are becoming more prevalent and cancer is among them. According to the Ministry of Health Kenya, the leading causes of death in the country are infectious diseases and cardiovascular diseases, followed by cancer which comes in third
[6]
. GLOBOCAN 2020 estimated the annual incidence rate of cancer in Kenya to be 42,116 and a mortality of 27,092 and also indicated that prostate cancer is the most common cancer among Kenyan males (21.9%), followed by colorectal cancer (8.3%) and esophageal cancer (8%)
[7]
. Despite the fact that PCa is the leading male cancer, its screening levels remain very low, especially in Kenyan rural areas
[8]
. This low uptake could be as a result of multiple factors. Recent studies carried out in Central Kenya and in the neighboring countries of Uganda and Tanzania found poor knowledge on PCa, fatalistic beliefs, low risk perception, cultural factors and unavailability of screening services as some of the factors hindering testing
[9-11]
.
Besides the challenge of low screening level the other major problem in Kenya is late diagnosis of PCa. Prostate cancer has an indolent course and is usually asymptomatic in its early stages. Most cases especially in low-income countries are diagnosed when the disease has reached advanced stages with poor prognosis. Prostate cancer screening is meant to identify PCa cases before they start manifesting clinically and there is also evidence that prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening can detect early stages of prostate cancer
[12]
. Data from the regional cancer registry at Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI) reveals that majority of cancer cases in Kenya (about 80%) are diagnosed late when the disease has already spread to other parts of the body and nothing much can be done at this stage in terms of treatment
[13]
. This late diagnosis and seeking of treatment could be as a result of the same reasons leading to low screening rates.
In Kenya, there is limited research on prostate cancer and more so on the factors that could be leading to low screening levels and late diagnosis especially in the rural areas. This study therefore aims to investigate the factors influencing prostate cancer screening practices among men in the rural areas of Tharaka Nithi County. By identifying key factors influencing prostate cancer screening and the barriers faced by men in accessing these services, this study seeks to inform policy and practice on areas they need to target to come up with strategies that can enhance utilization of prostate cancer screening practices especially in the rural areas.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design
This was a descriptive cross-sectional study which assessed the factors influencing the uptake of prostate cancer screening services. The study was conducted as a baseline survey for a larger intervention study that was assessing the effects of education intervention on uptake of prostate cancer screening.
2.2. Study Area
The study was conducted in the rural areas of Tharaka Nithi County in Eastern Kenya. The main social economic activity of the area is agricultural, with 80% of those living in the area either practicing small scale crop farming, daily farming or mixed farming. Crop farming in the region is mainly rainfall dependent and is therefore characterized by frequent crop failures especially in lower parts of the County. Over 70% of the roads are not tarmacked and the commonest means of transport is motorbikes. The study region has high prevalence of prostate cancer
[14]
and is served by four main hospitals including Chuka County Referral Hospital, Presbyterian Church of East Africa Chogoria Hospital, Magutuni Sub-County Hospital and Marimanti Sub-Couty Hospital. At the grass-root level, health care is organized into community units. A Community unit is a health service delivery structure within a defined geographical area covering a population of approximately 5000 people. Each unit is assigned two Community Health Extension workers (CHEWs) who are either trained nurses or public health officers and a community health volunteer, who is a member of the community who have received basic training in health and whose main responsibility is to provide promotive, preventive and basic curative services.
2.3. Study Population
Target population was men aged 40 years and above from the County and who were eligible for prostate cancer screening as per the Kenyan ministry of health prostate cancer screening guidelines
[15]
. Inclusion criteria was men aged 40 years and above from the sampled areas within Tharaka- Nithi County who were willing to participate in the study. Exclusion criteria was adult males who were either mentally or physically sick at the time of study. Of the 400 men sampled initially based on sampling procedure 21 declined to participate when they were explained the study was to continue for six months. (Figure 1 below) Those who declined were equally distributed from both arms of the study and so not likely to affect the outcome of the study and the number that participated was within the limits of the calculated sample of 348.
Figure 1. Consort diagram showing recruitment to analysis.
2.4. Sample Size Determination.
This being a part of a larger intervention study, the sample size calculation formula by Charan and Biswas, (2013) was used to determine the sample size
[16]
.
n=2Zα+Zβ2×p1-pp2-p12
Where,
n = sample size required from each condition (pre-and post-intervention).
Zα = critical value for the normal distribution of population at 95% confidence interval for two tailed (Z.05 is 1.96)
Zβ=critical value for the normal distribution for the probability of type II error at 80% power for this study (Z2 is 0.842).
p = pooled prevalence (prevalence in case group (p1) + prevalence in control group) (p2)/2
p1- p2 = difference in proportion of events in two groups in an experimental study
A similar study carried out in 2022, which assessed the effectiveness of education intervention on prostate examination, was used to estimate p1(the expected sample proportion who participated in PC screening at baseline) and p2 (the expected sample proportion who participated in PC screening post-intervention)
[17]
. This gave a sample size of 348 before adding 15% to cater for the non-response rate, giving this study a calculated sample size of 400.
2.5. Sampling Technique
The study targeted adult males living in the rural areas of Tharaka Nithi county. The County has six Sub-counties from which four were selected randomly. Two community units were then randomly picked from each of the four sub-counties making a total of 8 community units in which the study was carried out. A list of households with men who met the selection criteria was then developed in each of the selected community unit and systematic random sampling was used to select 50 participants per community unit.
2.6. Data Collection and Instrumentation
The study was conducted between October and December 2022. Data was collected using researcher-administered questionnaires which had both open and close-ended questions. The questionnaire was developed by the author and a team from Ministry of Health working in the County and was validated by experts from Ministry of Health national office and Kenyatta University. The questionnaire was also reviewed by the academic supervisors of this research study to confirm its conformity to study objectives and its usability. Before use, the questionnaire was first pre-tested in a community unit in the neighboring county of Embu and any ambiguities and inconsistencies noted were corrected before producing the final version of the questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of four sections: Section 1: Socio-demographic characteristics which included age of the respondent, level of education, employment status, marital status and religion. Section II: Assessment of the level of awareness of prostate cancer which included questions such as whether they had heard of prostate cancer, their source of information, awareness of signs and symptoms of prostate cancer, awareness of screening tests and aware of any family members who could be suffering from prostate cancer. Section III: History of PCa screening and related factors which included asking respondents whether they have ever been screened for prostate cancer, reasons that lead to their screening, the type of screening test they went through and whether they believe prostate cancer screening is beneficial or not. Section IV: Assessment on barriers to screening which included questions on hindering factors such as fear of finding out someone has cancer, unavailability of test, cost of the test, pain and discomfort caused by the screening test and cultural factors among other. Data was collected by four trained assistants who were guided through the study area by Community Health Volunteers between October and November 2022.
2.7. Data Analysis
After checking for completeness data was first entered into an Excel sheet and then exported to the Statistical Package of Social Sciences Version 22 for analysis. Descriptive statistics such as frequencies and means were used to summarize the data. The Pearson’s chi square (χ2) and Fisher’s exact test analysis were used to examine the association between independent variables (socio-demographic variables, awareness of prostate cancer, hindering factors) and the dependent variable (prostate cancer screening practices). The variables that were found to be significant (P < 0.05) were then subjected to further analysis using logistics regression.
2.8. Ethical Considerations
Ethical approval for conducting the study was sought and obtained from Kenyatta University Ethics Review Committee, REF Number: PKU/2405/11614. Research authorization was also sought from Tharaka Nithi Department of Health Services and Sanitation. Informed consent was obtained from every participant after they were explained and understood what the research entailed and that participation was voluntary and they could withdraw at will without reprisal.
3. Results
3.1. Socio-demographic Characteristics of the Respondents
A total of 379 men participated in the study. The majority of the participants, 58.6% were aged between 40 to 59yrs, and the remaining 41.4% were above 60 years. Most of the participants, 74.7% were married, 47.5% had attained at least primary-level education and 64.4% were employed. Other characteristics are shown in Table 1
Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of study participants.

Characteristic

Population (N=379)

Percentage (%)

Age (years)

40-59

222

58.6

60-Above

157

41.4

Marital Status

Married

283

74.7

Single

35

9.2

Widow

35

9.2

Separated

26

6.9

Education Level

Up-to Primary

180

47.5

Secondary

125

33

Post secondary

74

19.5

Employment status

Employed

244

64.4

Not employed

135

35.5

Religion

Catholic

122

32.2

Protestants

234

61.7

Others

23

6.1
3.2. Awareness of Prostate Cancer
Majority of the study participants, 85.2% had heard about prostate cancer and the most common source of information cited was health workers 32.7% followed by radio 23.5%. Out of 69.4% who had ever heard of prostate cancer screening, only 16.6% were aware of the specific screening tests used in screening for PCa. PSA test was mentioned by majority of the participants 46% as the test they were aware of, followed by digital rectal exam at 36.5% (23). 14.5% had family history of prostate cancer. (Table 2).
Table 2. Awareness of Prostate cancer.

Variable

Category (N=379)

Frequency (%)

Ever heard of Prostate cancer

Yes

323 (85.2%)

No

56 (14.8%)

Source of Information

Radio

89 (23.5%)

Television

53 (14.0%

Newspaper

13 (3.4%)

Friends

45 (11.9%)

Health workers

123 (32.5%)

Ever heard of Prostate cancer screening

Yes

263 (69.4%)

No

116 (30.6%)

Awareness on specific Prostate cancer screening tests

Yes

63 (16.6%)

No

316 (83.4%)

Prostate cancer screening method

PSA screening

29 (46.0%)

Digital Rectal Exam

23 (36.5%)

Ultrasound

11 (17.5%)

Family history of prostate cancer

Yes

55 (14.5%)

No

324 (85.5%)
3.3. Prostate Cancer Screening Practices
Only 4.5% of all the participants had been screened for prostate cancer. Majority of those screened 64.7% had gone through PSA screening test and the main reason given for screening was either because the participants was not feeling well or doctor recommended screening for whatever reason 82.4% (Table 3 below).
Table 3. Prostate cancer screening Practices.

Variable

Category

Frequency (%)

Ever been Screened for prostate cancer (N=379)

Yes

17 (4.5%)

No

362 (95.5%)

Method of screening (n=17)

PSA Testing

11(64.7%)

Digital Rectal Examination

2 (11.8%)

Biopsy

4 (23.5%)

Why were you screened

Not feeling well/ Doctors recommendation

14 (82.4%)

Heard from media

2 (11.8%)

Encouraged by friend

1 (5.9%)

Is prostate cancer screening beneficial

Yes

361 (95.3%)

No

18 (4.7%)
3.4. Factors Hindering Prostate Cancer Screening
The respondents identified several factors as hindrances to prostate cancer screening. Among the factors identified, poor knowledge or lack of enough information on prostate cancer was leading with 77.6% of the respondents citing it as a hindrance, followed by high cost of screening tests (71.8%) and unavailability of screening tests (64.4%). Other factors included fear of finding out one has cancer (57.5%), not feeling at risk (46.7%), culture (57.3%), and pain and discomfort associated with screening (31.4%) (Table 4).
Table 4. Factors hindering prostate cancer screening.

Factors that hinder Prostate cancer testing

Percentage of the respondents who mentioned the factor

Intervention group (n=379)

1

Fear of finding out I have cancer

218 (57.5%)

2

Test not available,

244 (64.4%)

3

Not feeling at risk

177 (46.7%)

4

Cost of cancer screenings

272 (71.8%)

5

Pain and discomfort of screenings

119 (31.4%)

6

Not having enough information on PCa and screenings

294 (77.6 %)

7

Cultural factors

217 (57.3%)
3.5. Association Between both Demographic Characteristics and Awareness Factors; and Prostate Cancer Screening Practices
Chi-square and Fisher’s Exact tests were done to establish the relationship between various factors and prostate cancer screening as shown in Table 5. Factors found to be significantly associated with prostate cancer screening included education level (X2 = 17.898, df=2, P< 0.001), awareness of PCa screening (X2 = 5.123, df=1, P=0.028), awareness of PCa specific screening tests (X2 = 77.122, df=1, P< 0.001) and family history of PCa. (X2 = 36.145, df=1, P< 0.001).
Table 5. Association between demographic characteristics and awareness with prostate cancer screening practices.

Variables

Categories

Prostate cancer screening

Yes (%)

No (%)

Age

40-59 yrs

7 (1.8)

215 (56.7)

X2 = 2.220 df=1, p=0.206

60yrs and above

10 (2.6)

147(38.8)

Marital Status

Married

15

268

X2 = 1.732 df=1, p=0.259 (Fisher's Exact)

Not married

2

94

Education Level

Up-to Primary

3 (0.8)

177 (46.7)

X2 = 17.898 df=2, P< 0.001 (Fisher's Exact)

Secondary

4 (0.1)

121 (31.9)

Post Secondary

10 (2.6)

64 (16.9)

Employment Status

Not employed

3 (0.8)

132 (34.8)

X2 = 2.507 df=1, p=0.128 (Fisher's Exact)

Employed

14 (3.7)

230 (60.7)

Awareness of PCa

No

2(0.5)

54(14.2)

X2 = 1.28 df=1, p=0.720 (Fisher's Exact)

Yes

15(3.9)

308 (81.3)

Awareness of PCa screening

No

1

115

X2 = 5.123 df=1, p=0.028 (Fisher's Exact)

Yes

16

247

Awareness of PCa specific Tests

No

1 (0.3)

315 (83.1)

X2 = 77.122 df=1, P< 0.001 (Fisher's Exact)

Yes

16 (4.2)

47 (12.4)

Family History of PCa

No

6 (1.6)

318 (83.9)

X2 = 36.145 df=1, P< 0.001

Yes

11 (2.9)

44 (11.6)
3.6. Association Between Hindering Factors and Prostate Cancer Screening Practices
Chi square and Fisher’s Exact tests were done to establish the relationship between the various hindering factors and prostate cancer screening as shown in Table 6. A significant relationship was found between prostate cancer screening and cost of test (X2 = 20.440 df=1, p=0.001); not having enough information on prostate cancer (χ2=13.552, df=1, p=0.001) and cultural factors (χ2=5.638, df=1, p=0.023).
Table 6. Cross tabulation of Hindrance factors and Prostate cancer Screening.

Variables

Categories

Prostate cancer screening

Yes

No

Fear of finding out I have cancer

Yes

12 (3.1)

206 (54.4)

X2 = 1.244 df=1, p=0.322

No

5 (1.3)

156 (41.2)

Test not available

Yes

11 (2.9)

233 (61.5)

X2 = 0.495 df=1, p=0.720

No

6 (1.6)

129 (34)

Not feeling at risk

Yes

9 (2.4)

168 (44.3)

X2 = 0.278 df=1, p=0.598

No

8 (2.1)

194 (51.2)

Cost of cancer screenings

Yes

4 (1.1)

268 (70.7)

X2 = 20.440 df=1, (P< 0.001), (Fisher's Exact)

No

13 (3.4)

94 (24.8)

Pain and discomfort of screenings

Yes

6 (1.6)

113 (29.8)

X2 = 1.25 df=1, p=0.790

No

11 (2.9)

249 (65.7)

Not having enough information on Pca and screenings

Yes

7 (1.8)

287 (75.7)

X2 =13.552, df=1, p=0.001

No

10 (2.6)

75 (19.7)

Cultural Factors

Yes

5 (1.3)

212 (55.9)

X2 = 5.638 df=1, p=0.023

No

12 (2.9)

150 (39.6)
4. Discussion
This study assessed the screening practices and factors influencing prostate cancer screening among men from Eastern Kenya. In this study, the screening level was very low and only 4.5% of the study participants had been screened for prostate cancer. This finding was not peculiar given that a number of recent studies on screening practices among rural populations in a number of countries in Sub-Saharan Africa have found similar results. Recent studies carried out in Central Kenya, Ethiopia, South Africa and Tanzania found 5%, 7.2%, 7.7% and 3.3% of their study participants had been screened respectively
[9, 18-20]
. This low level of screening could be a result of lack of screening facilities and services in these rural areas and also lack of knowledge on prostate cancer. Prostate cancer screening remains the best available method of detecting prostate cancer early, and therefore there is a need to teach and encourage people on the same.
The awareness level of prostate cancer was high in this study as the majority of the participants (85.2%) had heard of prostate cancer and their main source of information was the media. This finding was consistent with studies carried out in Central Kenya, Uganda and Rwanda
[9, 10, 21]
. Although general awareness of PCa was high, awareness of specifics like the types of screening tests was poor. The disparity between the two levels of awareness could be explained by the participant's main source of information which was media (radio and television) which is usually very good in awareness creation but does not give details.
Factors found to be significantly associated with prostate cancer screening were level of education, family history of prostate cancer and awareness of screening tests. Level of education had been found to be influencing prostate cancer screening in other sub-Saharan African countries as observed in Nigeria and Zambia
[22, 23]
. This could be as a result of the fact that those with higher levels of education are more exposed and are likely to be more inquisitive on whatever they hear about matters health and are likely to take precautionary measures to protect themselves. Family history of prostate cancer have also been found to influence prostate cancer screening in other studies
[11, 23]
. This demonstrates that the family members of a patient with prostate cancer take a keen interest in the disease and get as much health education on the disease as they can and are likely to be more cautious about the disease leading them to go for PCa screening. Socio-economic factors such as, employment or having an insurance cover have been found to be positively associated with prostate cancer screening in studies carried out in Tanzania and Nigeria
[11, 24]
, but this did not have any association in our study.
In our study a number of factors hindering testing were mentioned by the participants including lack of knowledge, high cost of screening tests, unavailability of screening tests and fatalistic beliefs among others. Lack of enough information on prostate cancer and screening, cost of screening tests and cultural factors were found to have significant association with prostate cancer screening practices. The other factors showed no significant association with prostate cancer screening practices and this could partly be due to the low levels of testing witnessed in our study. These factors however, have been identified as hindrances to testing in a number of studies carried out in Sub Saharan Africa
[10, 11, 25, 26]
. They have also been associated with low levels of testing in rural areas of many Sub-Saharan African Countries
[9, 10, 14]
. It is therefore important for the policymakers in our country to come up with strategies that address these factors to help overcome the challenge of low levels of PCa screening which has also been associated with late diagnosis being witnessed in our country.
5. Conclusion
Findings from this study demonstrated high level of prostate cancer awareness and low uptake of screening services. Factors found to be significantly associated with prostate cancer screening were education level, Awareness of PCa screening, awareness of screening tests, family history of prostate cancer, cost of PCa test, cultural factors and lack of enough information on prostate cancer and screening. Other factors identified in this study as hindrances to prostate cancer screening included high cost of screening tests, unavailability of screening tests, fatalistic beliefs and low risk perception. Based on above conclusions the study recommends that the government needs to come up with appropriate strategies to address these hindrances and scale up screening services at the community level to facilitate early diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer.
6. Limitations and Strengths
This being a cross-sectional study, the association of dependent and independent variables could not be clearly explained. There was also a challenge of recall bias especially among the aged men as the data was collected by self-report. Nevertheless, the study provides relevant information that can be used in designing strategies to help overcome some of the challenges leading to low prostate cancer screening levels and help improve prostate cancer screening in the community.
Abbreviations

PCa

Prostate Cancer

PSA

Prostate-specific Antigen

GLOBOCAN

Global Cancer Observatory

USPSTF

United States Preventive Services Task Force

PCEA

Presbyterian Church of East Africa

CHEWs

Community Health Extension Workers
Acknowledgments
Special thanks to my supervisors Professor Okello Agina and Dr. Isaac Mwanzo for their support and guidance. I also extend my gratitude to Tharaka Nithi County community strategy coordinating team, the research assistants, community health volunteers and the study participants for their contributions during the entire study.
Author Contributions
Joshua Kabugi: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Re-sources
Okello Agina: Supervision, Writing- review and editing
Isaac Mwanzo: Supervision, Methodology, Validation
Data Availability Statement
The data supporting the outcome of this research work has been reported in this manuscript.
Funding
This work is not supported by any external funding.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
[1] Mottet, N., Bergh R., Briers E., Broeck, T., Cumberbatch, M., Santis, M. et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer 2020 Update. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 2021 Feb; 79(2): 243-262.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042

[2] Bergengren, O., Pekala, K., Matsoukas, K., Fainberg, J., Mungovan, S., Bratt, O., Bray, f. et al. 2022 Update on Prostate Cancer Epidemiology and Risk Factors—A Systematic Review. European Urology 84 (2023) 191–206.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2023.04.021

[3] Bray, F., Laversanne, M., Sung, H., Ferlay, J., Siege,l R., Soerjomataram, I. et al.. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2024; 74: 229–263.

https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21834

[4] Bray, F., Parkin. D. M. Cancer in Sub-Saharan Africa in 2020: a review of current estimates of the national burden, data gaps, and future needs. Lancet Oncol. 2022; 23(6): 719–28.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00270-4

[5] Seraphin, T., Joko-Fru, W., Kamate, B., Chokunonga, E., Wabinga, H., Somdyala N. et al. Rising prostate cancer incidence in sub-Saharan Africa: a trend analysis of data from the African Cancer Registry Network. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev.2021 Jan; 30(1): 158-165.

https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965 EPI-20-1005.

[6] MoH 2023. The National Cancer Control Strategy (2023–2027).
[7] Sung, H., Ferlay, J., Siegel, R. L., Laversanne, M., Soerjomataram, I., Jemal, A. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians. 2021 May; 71(3): 209-249.

https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660

[8] Mbugua, R. G., Karanja S. and Oluchina S. Effectiveness of a Community Health Worker-Led Intervention on Knowledge, Perception, and Prostate Cancer Screening among Men in Rural Kenya. Advances in Preventive Medicine. Volume 2022 Aug 8: 2022: 4621446.

https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4621446

[9] Mbugua, R., Oluchina, S., Karanja, S. Prostate cancer awareness and screening among men in a rural community in Kenya: a cross-sectional study. Afr J Urol. 2021; 27(1): 7.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12301-020-00108-8

[10] Ekwan, R., Bua, E., Nantale, R., Opito, R., Abingwa, P., Sserwanja, Q. et al. Uptake of prostate cancer screening and associated factors among men aged 50 years and above in Lira city, Uganda: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health (2023) 23: 432.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-15348-w

[11] Ngowi, B. N, Mremi, A., Mbwambo, O. J., Mitao, M. P., Nyindo, M., Mteta, A., Mmbaga, M. T. Prostate cancer knowledge and barriers to screening among men at risk in northern Tanzania: A community-based study. Cancer Treatment and Research Communications 39 (2024) 100811.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctarc.2024.100811

[12] Carlsson, S.., Arnsrud Godtman, R., Pihl, C. G., Vickers, A., Lilja, H., Hugosson, J. & Mansson M. Young age on starting prostate-specific antigen testing is associated with a greater reduction in prostate cancer mortality: 24-year follow-up of the Göteborg randomized population-based prostate cancer screening trial. European Urology 2023; 83: 103–9.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2022.10.006

[13] Korir, A., Okerosi, N., Osii, R., Kisiangani, I., Rono, V., Emai, S., et al.. Cancer Incidence report (2009-2013); Nairobi Cancer Registry; Feb 2018.
[14] Mutiso, J., Gitonga, C., Abdullahi, B., Simbauni, J., & Gicheru, M. Alarming Cases of Cancer in Kenya: A Case for Meru and Tharaka Nithi Counties. British Journal of Healthcare and Medical Research, (2023)10(1). 55-64.
[15] Ministry of Health. National Cancer Screening Guidelines 2018.

https://www.health.go.ke/wpcontent/uploads/2019/02/National-Cancer-Screening- Guidelines-2018.pdf

[16] Charan, J. and Biswas, T. How to Calculate Sample Size for Different Study Designs in Medical Research? Indian J Psychol Med. 2013 Apr-Jun; 35(2): 121–126.

https://doi.org/10.4103/0253-7176.116232 .

[17] Abhar, R., Hassani, L., Montaseri, M., Ardakani, M. The Effect of an Educational Intervention Based on the Health Belief Model on Preventive Behaviors of Prostate Cancer in Military Men. Community Health Equity Research & Policy. 2022; 42(2): 127-134.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0272684X20974196

[18] Shanko A, Abute L, Tamirat T. Prostate cancer screening practice and associated factors among men in public health facilities of Hossana town, Ethiopia. Patient-Related Outcome Measures 2022: 229–238.

https://doi.org/10.2147/prom.s380898

[19] Maladze, N., Angelina Maphula A., Maluleke, M., and Lufuno Makhado, L. Knowledge and Attitudes towards Prostate Cancer and Screening among Males in Limpopo Province, South Africa. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Mar; 20(6): 5220.

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20065220

[20] Bugoye, F. C., Leyna, G. H., Moen, K., Mmbaga, E. J. Knowledge, perceived risk and utilization of prostate cancer screening services among men in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Prostate Cancer; 2019: 2463048. PMID: 31871794; PMCID: PMC6913246.

https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/2463048

[21] Benurugo, G., Munyambaraga, E., Chironda, G. Bisanukuri, E. Awareness on prostate cancer and screening practices among men attending outpatient at a referral hospital in Kigali, Rwanda: a quantitative study. Int J Africa Nurs Sci 13 (August) (2020) 100241.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijans.2020.100241

[22] Ugochukwu, U., Odukoya, O., Ajogwu, A., Ojewola, R. Prostate cancer screening: what do men know, think and do about their risk? Exploring the opinions of men in an urban area in Lagos State, Nigeria: a mixed methods survey. Pan Afr Med J. 2019; 34: 168.

https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2019.34.168.20921

[23] Gift S, Nancy K, Victor M. Assessment of knowledge, practice and attitude towards prostate cancer screening among male patients aged 40 years and above at Kitwe Teaching Hospital, Zambia. Afr J Urol. 2020; 26(1): 70. 20.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12301-020-00067-0

[24] Bello JO, Buhari T, Mohammed TO, Olanipekun HB, Egbuniwe AM, Fasiku OK, et al. Determinants of prostate specific antigen screening test uptake in an urban community in North-Central Nigeria. Afri Health Sci. 2019; 19(1). 1665-1670.

https://doi.org/10.4314/ahs. v19i1.42

[25] Mutua, K., Pertet, A. M., & Otieno, C. Cultural factors associated with the intent to be screened for prostate cancer among adult men in a rural Kenyan community. BMC Public Health, 2017, article 894.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12301-020-00108-8

[26] Awosan, K. J., Yanusa, E. U., Agwu, N. P., & Taofiq, S. Knowledge of prostate cancer screening practices among men in Sokoto, Nigeria. Asian Journal of Medical Sciences, 2018: 9(6), 51–56.

https://doi.org/10.3126/ajms.v9i6.20751

Cite This Article
Plain Text BibTeX RIS

  • APA Style

    Mwangi, J., Agina, O., Mwanzo, I. (2025). Factors Influencing Prostate Cancer Screening Among Men from Eastern Kenya. Central African Journal of Public Health, 11(2), 43-52. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cajph.20251102.11

    Copy | Download

    ACS Style

    Mwangi, J.; Agina, O.; Mwanzo, I. Factors Influencing Prostate Cancer Screening Among Men from Eastern Kenya. Cent. Afr. J. Public Health 2025, 11(2), 43-52. doi: 10.11648/j.cajph.20251102.11

    Copy | Download

    AMA Style

    Mwangi J, Agina O, Mwanzo I. Factors Influencing Prostate Cancer Screening Among Men from Eastern Kenya. Cent Afr J Public Health. 2025;11(2):43-52. doi: 10.11648/j.cajph.20251102.11

    Copy | Download 

  • @article{10.11648/j.cajph.20251102.11,
  author = {Joshua Mwangi and Okello Agina and Isaac Mwanzo},
  title = {Factors Influencing Prostate Cancer Screening Among Men from Eastern Kenya},
  journal = {Central African Journal of Public Health},
  volume = {11},
  number = {2},
  pages = {43-52},
  doi = {10.11648/j.cajph.20251102.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cajph.20251102.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.cajph.20251102.11},
  abstract = {Prostate cancer is the most prevalent urological cancer and causes a significant global health burden, especially in developed countries. It is the most frequently diagnosed cancer among men in more than half of the countries in the world. Early diagnosis minimizes complications and mortalities associated with it. In Kenya it is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among men and usually characterized with low rates of screening and late diagnosis. Several factors have been found to influence prostate cancer screening. This study sought to establish factors influencing prostate cancer screening in the rural settings of Tharaka Nithi County in Eastern Kenya. The study adopted cross-sectional design in which researcher-administered questionnaires were used to collect data. Multi-stage sampling was used to recruit 379 men who were 40 years old and above who participated in the study. Data analysis was done using the statistical package of Social Science version 22. Frequencies and percentages were used for data presentation. Chi square (χ2) and Fisher’s exact test were used test relationship between dependent and independent variables. P-value of p=0.001), insufficient information on PCa (χ2 = 13.55, p=0.001) and cultural factors (χ2 = 5.63, p=0.023). Conclusions: Although prostate cancer awareness level was high, prostate cancer screening rates were low among men from Tharaka Nithi County. Several factors influencing screening were identified, some of which were hindrances. There is therefore need for the county government to come up with appropriate strategies to address these hindrances and scale up screening services at the community level to facilitate early diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer.},
 year = {2025}
}

    Copy | Download 

  • TY  - JOUR
T1  - Factors Influencing Prostate Cancer Screening Among Men from Eastern Kenya
AU  - Joshua Mwangi
AU  - Okello Agina
AU  - Isaac Mwanzo
Y1  - 2025/03/18
PY  - 2025
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cajph.20251102.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.cajph.20251102.11
T2  - Central African Journal of Public Health
JF  - Central African Journal of Public Health
JO  - Central African Journal of Public Health
SP  - 43
EP  - 52
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2575-5781
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cajph.20251102.11
AB  - Prostate cancer is the most prevalent urological cancer and causes a significant global health burden, especially in developed countries. It is the most frequently diagnosed cancer among men in more than half of the countries in the world. Early diagnosis minimizes complications and mortalities associated with it. In Kenya it is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among men and usually characterized with low rates of screening and late diagnosis. Several factors have been found to influence prostate cancer screening. This study sought to establish factors influencing prostate cancer screening in the rural settings of Tharaka Nithi County in Eastern Kenya. The study adopted cross-sectional design in which researcher-administered questionnaires were used to collect data. Multi-stage sampling was used to recruit 379 men who were 40 years old and above who participated in the study. Data analysis was done using the statistical package of Social Science version 22. Frequencies and percentages were used for data presentation. Chi square (χ2) and Fisher’s exact test were used test relationship between dependent and independent variables. P-value of p=0.001), insufficient information on PCa (χ2 = 13.55, p=0.001) and cultural factors (χ2 = 5.63, p=0.023). Conclusions: Although prostate cancer awareness level was high, prostate cancer screening rates were low among men from Tharaka Nithi County. Several factors influencing screening were identified, some of which were hindrances. There is therefore need for the county government to come up with appropriate strategies to address these hindrances and scale up screening services at the community level to facilitate early diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer.
VL  - 11
IS  - 2
ER  -

    Copy | Download

Author Information

  • Joshua Mwangi

    Department of Nursing and Public Health, Chuka University, Chuka, Kenya

    Biography: a student in Kenyatta university pursuing a Doctor of Philosophy degree in Epidemiology. He finished his Master's degree in Epidemiology and Disease Control in the same University in 2012. He has been working for the Ministry of Health coordinating various projects like Prevention of Mother to Child Transmission of HIV, but currently teaching in Chuka University. Areas of interest include research in disease control and prevention.

    Contact Email

    http://orcid.org/0009-0004-7898-1424

  • Okello Agina

    Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya

  • Isaac Mwanzo

    Department of Family Medicine, Community Health and Epidemiology, Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya

    http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7423-6134

Download PDF
  • Abstract
  • Keywords

  • Document Sections

    1. 1. Introduction
    2. 2. Materials and Methods
    3. 3. Results
    4. 4. Discussion
    5. 5. Conclusion
    6. 6. Limitations and Strengths
    Show Full Outline
  • Abbreviations
  • Acknowledgments
  • Author Contributions
  • Data Availability Statement
  • Funding
  • Conflicts of Interest
  • References
  • Cite This Article
  • Author Information

About Us

Science Publishing Group (SciencePG) is an Open Access publisher, with more than 300 online, peer-reviewed journals covering a wide range of academic disciplines.

Learn More About SciencePG

Products

Information

Important Link

Copyright © 2012 -- 2025 Science Publishing Group – All rights reserved.