Marketing a Healthy Mind, Body and Soul - An Analysis of How African American Men View the Church As a Social Marketer and Health Promoter of Colorectal Cancer Risk and Prevention

Theoretical Background and research questions/hypothesis:  According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, colorectal cancer is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer among men (CDC) in the United States. African American men are at an even greater risk when compared to all racial and ethnic groups.  Public health professionals have initiated various health promotion programs to address this disparity (Campbell et al., 2007; Holt et al., 2012) among African Americans and often turn to faith-based organizations such as churches to assist with reducing cancer incidence. The present study was from a larger study that investigates the church’s role as a social marketer of colorectal cancer (CRC) risk and prevention and whether religiously targeted health promotion materials compared to traditional health promotion materials will eventually lead to screening and impact CRC behavior outcome.  The theoretical underpinnings of the study were grounded in the experiences of the participants and how they perceived health communication materials marketed and sponsored by the church.  A portion of the discussion was also guided by the concepts of the theory of planned behavior. The following served as the research question:  How do African American male church members view church-sponsored colorectal cancer screening promotion materials compared to scientifically-sponsored materials?

Methods:  Six focus groups (N=38) were conducted with men from urban and suburban areas with six predominately African American churches throughout the Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City Metropolitan areas during a six-month period. 

Results:  Preliminary results from the focus groups show these individuals (men) trust their faith-based organization and leader to market this type of information to their congregation.  The groups indicated that they would only screen for colon cancer if their pastor or another member re-enforced or introduced the importance of screening for CRC; there was also a consensus that it was important for the pastor to actually get screened for CRC if he was eligible for screening (e.g. 50 or older and had family history of CRC); one focus group however believed strongly that the church should notmarket CRC materials beyond the church congregation because of the belief that the media would eventually distort the message.    Many did agree that health organizations such as the CDC or American Cancer Society should be a co-sponsor or have some role in providing information to congregants along with the church rather than being the sole sponsor.  Results yielded will inform a feasibility study that will test the effectiveness of church-sponsored health promotion materials marketed by churches. 

Conclusions:  These preliminary findings may also show that employing the church as a social marketer of CRC risk and prevention health promotion materials may be useful in strengthening health communication and subsequently screening behavior outcome among African Americans.

Implications for research and/or practice:  This information would be useful to health promoters, healthcare educators and providers concerning the impact of church-sponsored health communication materials among African American men.