AWARENESS AND PRACTICE OF PROSTATE SELF-

EXAMINATION AMONG MALE STAFF OF LADOKE

AKINTOLA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY ABOVE 40

YEARS

BY

ADEWALE ABDUS-SAMAD ADETOMIWA

EXAMINATION NUMBER:N/24/14846

A RESEARCH WORK SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY

OF NURSING SCIENCE, COLLEGE OF HEALTH

SCIENCES, LADOKE AKINTOLA UNIVERSITY OF

TECHNOLOGY, OGBOMOSO, OYO STATE, NIGERIA

NOVEMBER, 2024
 AWARENESS AND PRACTICE OF PROSTATE SELF-

EXAMINATION AMONG MALE STAFF OF LADOKE

AKINTOLA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY ABOVE 40

YEARS

BY

ADEWALE ABDUS-SAMAD ADETOMIWA

EXAMINATION NUMBER:N/24/14846

A RESEARCH WORK SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY

OF NURSING SCIENCE, COLLEGE OF HEALTH

SCIENCES, LADOKE AKINTOLA UNIVERSITY OF

TECHNOLOGY, OGBOMOSO, OYO STATE, NIGERIA

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

OF THE NURSING AND MIDWIFERY COUNCIL OF

NIGERIA FOR THE AWARD OF THE “REGISTERED

NURSE” CERTIFICATE

NOVEMBER, 2024

ii
 DECLARATION

This is to declare that this research project titled AWARENESS AND

PRACTICE OF PROSTATE SELF-EXAMINATION AMONG MALE

STAFF OF LADOKE AKINTOLA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

ABOVE 40 YEARS was carried out by Adewale Abdus-samad Adetomiwa

and is solely the result of my work except where acknowledged as being

derived from other person (s) or resources.

Examination Number: _________________

Department of Medical-Surgical Nursing, Ladoke Akintola University of

Technology, Ogbomoso.

Signature _______________

iii
 CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that this research project by Adewale Abdus-Samad

Adetomiwa with examination number ……………………. has been
examined and approved for the award of
………………………………………..

Signature ____________________

DR. Z.O. OYEWUMI

(RN, Ph.D) Date: …………………………

Project Supervisor

Signature ____________________

Mr. J.A. AKINOSO

(RN, RM, RNAs, MSPN, BNSC, MSc.N Date: …………………………

Head of Department, Medical-Surgical Nursing

Signature _____________________

Name _______________________ Date: ………………………….

Chief Examiner

iv
 ABSTRACT

Prostate cancer is a significant health risk worldwide, necessitating early

detection. However, the practice of PSE remains low, particularly in low-
resource settings. The main aim of this study is to assess the awareness,
practice, and barriers to prostate self-examination (PSE) among male staff
aged over 40 at Ladoke Akintola University of Technology (LAUTECH), a
group at heightened risk for prostate cancer. Despite the importance of early
detection, PSE remains underutilized. This descriptive cross-sectional study
surveyed 422 participants using a structured questionnaire. Data analysis
involved descriptive statistics and chi-square tests to examine associations
between demographic variables and PSE practices. Findings revealed that
awareness of PSE was relatively low, with only 42.7% of participants having
heard of it—primarily from healthcare providers (40.3%). Additionally,
62.6% did not perform PSE, largely due to a lack of knowledge (93.8%).
Among those who practiced, 41.5% conducted PSE biannually. Key barriers
to PSE included lack of knowledge (95.7%), cultural beliefs (89.1%), and fear
(93.9%). Statistical analysis showed significant associations between age and
PSE practice (p = 0.000) as well as between awareness and practice (p =
0.000), suggesting that increased awareness could positively influence
practice. These study concludes that there is a critical need for educational
interventions targeting PSE awareness, especially addressing cultural and
psychological barriers. Expanding access to health education and
incorporating PSE instruction into routine healthcare may encourage
preventive practices and improve prostate health outcomes in similar
populations.
Keywords: prostate self-examination, awareness, barriers, prostate cancer,
preventive health, LAUTECH
Word Count: 200 words

v
 DEDICATION

This piece of work is dedicated to my parents.

vi
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, I give thanks to Almighty Allah, the only source of all

wisdom and knowledge. Who has guided and strengthened me throughout this

journey.

I also extend heartfelt gratitude to my esteemed supervisor, Dr. Z.O.

Oyewumi, whose expert guidance and valuable insights have shaped this

research into a masterpiece.

To my loving family, whose unwavering support and patience have been a

rock-solid foundation, I express my deepest appreciation To my parents,

Nurse Adewale and Mrs Adewale then my siblings. Your sacrifices,

encouragement, and prayers have fueled my determination and growth.

I sincerely want to recognize the help of my dear friends (researchers)

Bamimore Mubarak and Popoola Idris whose contributions made this research

work easier, I pray the Almighty continues to bless you two.

To my colleagues and friends, whose company have enriched my academic

journey, I offer sincere thanks. Your contributions and assistance have made

this path smoother and more enjoyable.

Lastly, To my respondents, Male staffs of this prestigious Institution, who

answered to my request despite their tight schedules I offer my heartfelt

appreciation.

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

COVER PAGE

AWARENESS AND PRACTICE OF PROSTATE SELF-EXAMINATION

AMONG MALE STAFF OF LADOKE AKINTOLA UNIVERSITY OF

TECHNOLOGY ABOVE 40 YEARS..............................................................ii

DECLARATION..............................................................................................iii

CERTIFICATION............................................................................................iv

ABSTRACT......................................................................................................v

DEDICATION..................................................................................................vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT...............................................................................vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS...............................................................................viii

LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................xvii

CHAPTER ONE................................................................................................１

INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................１

1.1 Background of the study..............................................................................１

1.2 Statement of the Problem.............................................................................３

1.3 Objectives of the Study................................................................................４

1.3.1 General Objective.....................................................................................４

viii
1.3.2 Specific Objectives...................................................................................４

1.4 Research Questions......................................................................................５

1.5 Research Hypotheses...................................................................................５

1.6 Significance of the Study.............................................................................６

1.7 Scope of the Study.......................................................................................７

1.8 Operational Definition of Terms..................................................................７

CHAPTER TWO...............................................................................................９

LITERATURE REVIEW..................................................................................９

2.0 Introduction..................................................................................................９

2.1 Conceptual Review......................................................................................９

2.1.1 Concept of Prostrate Self-Examination....................................................９

2.1.2 Barriers of the Practice of Prostrate Self-Examination...........................１０

2.1.3 Interventions to help in the practice of Prostrate Self-Examination.......１１

2.2 Theoretical Framework..............................................................................１２

2.2.1 Overview of the Model...........................................................................１２

2.2.2 Component of Health Belief Model........................................................１２

2.2.3 Assumptions of the Model......................................................................１３

2.2.4 Application of the HBM Components into PSE Interventions...............１４

ix
2.3 Empirical Framework................................................................................１７

CHAPTER THREE.........................................................................................２１

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY....................................................................２１

3.0 Introduction................................................................................................２１

3.1 Research Design........................................................................................２１

3.2 Research Setting........................................................................................２１

3.3 Target Population.......................................................................................２２

3.4 Sample Size Determination.......................................................................２２

3.5 Sampling Techniques.................................................................................２３

3.6 Data Collection Instrument........................................................................２３

3.8 Reliability of Instrument............................................................................２４

3.9 Data Collection Method............................................................................２４

3.10 Method of Data Analysis.........................................................................２５

3.10 Ethical Considerations.............................................................................２５

CHAPTER FOUR...........................................................................................２６

ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF DATA...........................................２６

4.0 Introduction................................................................................................２６

4.1 Presentation and Interpretation of Results.................................................２７

x
4.2: Testing of Hypotheses..............................................................................３１

4.3 Answering of Research Questions.............................................................３３

CHAPTER FIVE.............................................................................................３４

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS........................................................................３４

5.0 Introduction................................................................................................３４

5.1 Discussion..................................................................................................３４

5.2 Summary....................................................................................................３７

5.3 Conclusion.................................................................................................３８

5.4 Implications for Nursing Practice..............................................................３８

5.6 Recommendations for Future Studies........................................................３８

REFERENCES................................................................................................３９

APPENDIX I...................................................................................................４２

QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE AWARENESS AND PRACTICE OF

PROSTATE SELF-EXAMINATION AMONG MALE STAFF OF LADOKE

AKINTOLA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY ABOVE 40 YEARS.......４２

APPENDIX II..................................................................................................４５

PILOT STUDY................................................................................................４５

xi
xii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1 Sociodemographic Variables 29

Table 4.2 Awareness of Prostate Self Examination 30

Table 4.3 Practice of Prostate Self Examination 31

Table 4.4 Barriers to Prostate Self Examination 32

Table 4.5 Hypothesis 1 Testing 33

Table 4.6 Hypothesis 2 Testing 34

xiii
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the study

Prostate cancer, or adenocarcinoma of the prostate as it is called in some

settings, can be described as cancer of the prostate gland. The prostate is a

small fibromuscular accessory gland of the male reproductive system

weighing about 20g. It is located posterior to the pubic symphysis, superior to

the perineal membrane, inferior to the bladder and anterior to the rectum. It

produces and secretes proteolytic enzymes into semen, to facilitate

fertilization (Gift et al., 2020). Prostate cancer is a significant global health

concern for men worldwide, leading as the second cause of death related to

cancer among men, most especially, in the United States (Kaler et al., 2020).

For successful treatment, early detection and screening is important as it plays

a vital role in the process (Kaler et al., 2020; Olarewaju et al., 2020; Onyeodi

et al., 2022). However, various studies indicate that despite the widespread

awareness of prostrate cancer, screening rates remain low in most areas

(Hagger et al., 2022; Olarewaju et al., 2020; Onyeodi et al., 2022).

1
This gap has been highlighted by various studies. Onyeodi et al., (2022).

found that in an urban community in Lagos, while attitudes towards screening

were generally positive, knowledge about prostrate cancer itself was poor and

this leads to low screening rates. In the same vein, it was reported in a

community in Oyo State with considerable awareness of prostate cancer, but a

lack of comprehensive knowledge regarding symptoms and screening

methods resulted in low screening uptake (Olarewaju et al., 2020).

The gap between awareness and action extends beyond Nigeria. Studies in

Saudi Arabia and Zambia also revealed a substantial proportion of the

population with limited knowledge about prostate cancer and screening

options (Gift et al., 2020; Jarb et al., 2022). There is also a need for increased

public awareness campaigns in some parts of the world to improve

understanding of the disease and encourage screening practices. Also, there is

a critical need for interventions to promote public understanding of prostate

cancer and the importance of early detection through screening (Gift et al.,

2020).

It can also be noted that men, generally lack the knowledge and understanding

necessary to make informed decisions about prostate cancer screening. There

is a need for further research to be conducted to explore the specific factors

that contribute to low screening rates in different regions. By identifying these

barriers, healthcare professionals and policymakers can develop targeted

2
interventions to increase awareness, improve knowledge, and ultimately

encourage more men to undergo prostate cancer screening.

This study highlights the crucial connection between knowledge and the

actual practice of health-preserving behaviors. Awareness, as a key factor,

indicates how well-informed the male staff are about the significance and

methods of conducting prostate self-examinations, reflecting the effectiveness

of health education and communication within the university. The practice of

prostate self-examination assesses the real-world application of this

knowledge, exposing any variation between what is known and what is done.

By focusing on staff members over 40 years old, the study addresses a group

at increased risk for prostate issues, underlining the importance and urgency

of both awareness and practice in this age bracket. This research seeks to

provide valuable insights for shaping health policies, encouraging preventive

health measures, and ultimately lowering the rates of late-diagnosed prostate

conditions among LAUTECH staff.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Prostate cancer continues to be a major issue for men globally, especially

those who are 40 and older (Assefa et al., 2022; Olanrewaju et al., 2020). As

per the 2019 report from the World Health Organization, prostate cancer ranks

as the second most frequently detected cancer in males and the fifth major

contributor to cancer-related deaths worldwide. Many men are still not

3
knowledgeable about the significance of regular prostate examinations, even

though prostate cancer rates are high. The absence of knowledge and

implementation of PSE could result in delayed diagnosis and worse outcomes.

It is essential to comprehend the extent of consciousness and the variables

influencing the implementation of PSE in men over 40 in order to create

successful health education and intervention initiatives. Therefore, this study

aims to assess the awareness and practice of prostrate self-examination among

male staff of Ladoke Akintola University of Technology above 40 years.

1.3 Objectives of the Study

1.3.1 General Objective

The General Objective of the study is to assess the level of awareness and

practice of Prostate self-examination among male staff of Ladoke Akintola

University of Technology above 40 years.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

The specific objectives of this study are to:

1. Assess the level of awareness about prostate self-examination among

male staff of Ladoke Akintola University of Technology above 40

years.

4
 2. Evaluate the practice of prostate self-examination among male staff of

Ladoke Akintola University of Technology above 40 years.

3. Identify the barriers to the practice of prostate self-examination among

male staff of Ladoke Akintola University of Technology above 40

years.

1.4 Research Questions

1. What is the level of awareness of prostate self-examination among

male staff of Ladoke Akintola University of Technology above 40

years?

2. How well do the male staff of Ladoke Akintola University of

Technology above 40 years practice prostate self-examination?

3. What are the perceived barriers to prostate self-examination among

male staff of LAUTECH above 40 years?

1.5 Research Hypotheses

H01 There is no significant difference between the level of awareness and

practice of prostate self-examination among the male staff of Ladoke Akintola

University of Technology above 40 years.

H02 There is no significant difference between the age and the practice of

prostate self-examination among the male staff of Ladoke Akintola University

of Technology above 40 years.

5
1.6 Significance of the Study

Significance to the Nurse

Understanding the knowledge and practice of prostate self-examination

among male staff over 40 years old is essential for nurses involved in health

education and preventive care. The findings of this research can help nurses

identify gaps in awareness and provide targeted education on prostate health

and self-examination. By developing patient-centered educational resources,

nurses can empower individuals to take proactive steps in monitoring their

health, potentially leading to earlier detection and treatment of prostate issues.

This active approach supports the role of nurses in promoting health literacy

and preventive health behaviors, ultimately enhancing patient outcomes.

Significance to the Community

For the community, this research offers valuable insights into the current level

of awareness and practices surrounding prostate health among male university

staff. By highlighting the importance of self-examination, community health

initiatives can focus on reducing stigma and encouraging open discussions

about prostate health. Such awareness can foster a community culture that

values preventive health actions, particularly for men at higher risk of prostate

issues due to age. These initiatives can improve overall community health by

promoting early detection and timely intervention, thereby reducing the

6
morbidity and mortality associated with prostate cancer and related

conditions.

Significance to the Academic Body

This research contributes to the academic understanding of prostate health

awareness and preventive practices among specific populations, such as

university staff. It provides data that can inform future studies and the

development of targeted health education curricula. By identifying the factors

that influence prostate self-examination practices, academic institutions can

design more effective health education programs within universities and

similar settings. Furthermore, this study can serve as a foundation for policy

recommendations and public health interventions aimed at improving prostate

health and preventive care practices in academic institutions and beyond.

1.7 Scope of the Study

This study focuses on male LAUTECH staff who are above 40 years of age,

considering their higher risk for prostate cancer. It will cover aspects such as

their knowledge about prostate health, awareness of PSE, and the frequency of

practice. The study will be conducted at Ladoke Akintola University of

Technology, Ogbomoso. findings will be used to make broader inferences

about the population.

7
1.8 Operational Definition of Terms

Prostate Self-Examination (PSE): A method by which men can check their

prostate for abnormalities through self-palpation and observation.

Prostate Cancer: A type of cancer that occurs in the prostate gland, which is

a part of the male reproductive system.

Awareness: The knowledge or perception of a situation or fact.

Practice: The actual application or use of an idea, belief, or method, as

opposed to theories relating to it.

8
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Introduction

This chapter reviews relevant conceptual, empirical, and theoretical

frameworks and kinds of literature.

2.1 Conceptual Review

2.1.1 Concept of Prostrate Self-Examination

Prostate self-examination (PSE) is a method for men to personally inspect

their prostate gland for any abnormalities that may indicate prostate cancer or

other health issues.

The self-prostate examination involves a man checking his prostate gland for

lumps, hard spots, or irregularities. While not as frequently recommended as

PSA or DRE tests, it offers a practical and economical method for detecting

9
diseases early, particularly in regions with scarce medical facilities. This self-

examination typically includes the insertion of a lubricated, gloved finger into

the rectum to palpate the prostate, which is located close to the rectal wall.

While PSE offers possible advantages, its success relies on correct execution

and consistent training (Kaler et al., 2020). The main advantage of PSE is the

early identification of prostate irregularities, which can result in prompt

medical advice and care. Early detection of prostate cancer greatly enhances

treatment success and chances of survival (Olarewaju et al., 2020; Onyeodi et

al., 2022). Moreover, PSE enables men to play an active role in managing

their health, which could boost their overall awareness and involvement in

health-related matters.

2.1.2 Barriers of the Practice of Prostrate Self-Examination

From previously conducted kinds of research (Ojong et al., 2020; Kaler et al.,

2020; Olanrewaju et al., 2020) , the following are the challenges that men face

with the performance of Prostate Self-Examination

Lack of Awareness: Many men are unaware of PSE or its potential

benefits. Studies indicate that awareness campaigns and education are

crucial to increasing PSE practice (Ojong et al., 2020).

Cultural Stigma: Cultural norms and stigmas surrounding prostate

examinations can deter men from performing PSE. Overcoming these

10
 cultural barriers requires sensitive and tailored health communication

strategies (Kaler et al., 2020).

Fear and Anxiety: Fear of finding a potential health issue and the

associated anxiety can prevent men from conducting PSE (Olanrewaju et

al., 2020). Addressing these psychological barriers through supportive

counseling and reassurance is essential

Technical Difficulties: PSE requires a certain level of skill and comfort

with the procedure, which many men may not have. (Erena et al., 2020)

Training and instructional materials are needed to ensure proper technique

and confidence in performing the examination

2.1.3 Interventions to help in the practice of Prostrate Self-Examination

The following are interventions that can help in the practice of the Prostate

Self-examination in men as seen from various studies:

Health Education Programs: Educational interventions that provide

information on the importance of prostate health and instructions on how to

perform PSE have been shown to increase practice rates.

Community-Based Initiatives: Engaging community leaders and utilizing

peer education can effectively promote PSE in various demographic groups.

Community based programs have been successful in raising awareness and

encouraging practice

11
Healthcare Provider Involvement: Recommendations and reminders from

healthcare providers can serve as powerful cues to action. Integrating PSE

education into routine health visits enhances the likelihood of adoption

2.2 Theoretical Framework

For this study, the Health Belief Model will be the appropriate theoretical

background. The model will be used for assessing the awareness and practice

of prostate self-examination among male staff of Ladoke Akintola University

of Technology above 40 years, and examining how various components of the

model influence their behaviour towards prostate self-examination.

2.2.1 Overview of the Model

The Health Belief Model (HBM) offers a complete structure for

comprehending and forecasting health behaviors. Invented during the 1950s,

the HBM has been commonly utilized to clarify why people partake in

preventive health actions and to create strategies that enhance wellness. This

theoretical model utilizes the Health Belief Model to grasp how men over 40

years comprehend and engage in prostate self-examination (PSE).

12
2.2.2 Component of Health Belief Model

The model is made up of 6 key components, which are influencing health

behaviours: perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, perceived benefits,

perceived barriers, cues to action and self-efficacy (Alhalaseh et al., 2020).

Perceived susceptibility refers to an individual's belief about the likelihood

of contracting a disease or health condition. Men who perceive themselves as

having a high likelihood of developing prostate cancer are more inclined to

undergo prostate-specific antigen testing. Influential factors on perceived

susceptibility include individual health background, family history of prostate

cancer, and understanding of prostate cancer risk factors.

Perceived severity involves an individual's belief about the seriousness of

contracting an illness and its potential consequences. Men who are aware of

the severe outcomes of untreated prostate cancer are more driven to undergo

PSA testing.

Perceived Benefits are the individual's belief in the effectiveness of the

recommended action in reducing the likelihood or severity of consequences.

Men who are convinced that undergoing PSE will result in spotting issues

sooner and experiencing improved health results are more inclined to

participate in the activity. Promoting the advantages of early detection, like

increased treatment effectiveness and survival rates, can boost perceived

13
benefits. Men who comprehend the advantages of early recognition via PSE

are more likely to engage in it.

Perceived Barriers are an individual's assessment of the obstacles to

performing a recommended health behaviour. Some factors preventing

individuals from seeking PSE are limited awareness, social disapproval,

apprehension about being diagnosed, and challenges with technology.

Self-efficacy is the confidence in one's ability to successfully complete a

certain behavior. Men's willingness to participate in the practice of PSE is

affected by their belief in their ability to do it correctly.

Cues to Action: Cues to action are signals that encourage people to

participate in a health behavior. Health campaigns, prompts from healthcare

providers, and community assistance are effective stimuli for promoting PSE.

2.2.3 Assumptions of the Model

There are a number of assumptions of the model in relation to the study. Some

of the assumptions include:

i. The model assumes that male staff members are more likely to engage in

prostate self-examination if they believe they are personally at risk of

prostate issues, such as prostate cancer.

ii. The HBM assumes that individuals assess the seriousness of a health

condition.

14
iii. The model assumes that individuals will engage in a health-related

behavior if they believe it will effectively reduce their risk or severity of a

condition.

iv. The HBM assumes that potential barriers (like discomfort, lack of

knowledge, or cultural stigmas) can deter people from taking preventive

health actions.

v. The model assumes that individuals need a prompt or trigger to initiate

health behavior.

vi. The HBM assumes that individuals are more likely to engage in a

behavior if they feel confident in their ability to perform it correctly.

2.2.4 Application of the HBM Components into PSE Interventions

The Health Belief Model can contribute to this study in numerous ways. The

model will help to assess the awareness and practice of prostate self-

examination among male staff at LAUTEECH above 40 years. This will help

to understand the health beliefs and attitudes towards the practice. This model

will also help to utilize its various components to implement targeted

interventions which can be designed to increase awareness and promote the

regular practice of prostate self-examination leading to better health

outcomes. Integrating the components of the HBM into interventions can

effectively promote PSE among men over 40 years. The following strategies

can be employed:

15
Enhancing Perceived Susceptibility and Severity: Offering

individualized risk assessment and education about the severe implications

of untreated prostate cancer. Utilize personal accounts and examples to

demonstrate how prostate cancer affects individuals' lives.

Highlighting perceived Benefits: Convey the advantages of early

detection using PSE, like higher survival rates and improved treatment

results. Employ visual tools and positive testimonials to strengthen the

advantages.

Addressing Perceived Barriers: Spread the advantages of early detection

through PSE, like higher survival rates and improved treatment results.

Utilize visual aids and real-life success stories to strengthen the

advantages.

Increasing Self-Efficacy: Create training programs that incorporate

instructional videos, hands-on workshops, and practice sessions. Give

feedback and support to boost confidence in carrying out PSE.

Utilizing Cues to Action: Plan frequent health events and community

outreach programs to educate the public about PSE. Employ reminders

from healthcare professionals during regular check-ups and share

informative brochures and posters at community centers and healthcare

facilities.

16
17
 Fig 2.1 Conceptual Framework of the Health Belief Model.

2.3 Empirical Framework

Kaler et al., (2020) in their study titled: A Comprehensive Review of

Pharmaceutical and Surgical Interventions of Prostate Cancer. They found that

Prostate cancer, which arises in the gland that produces seminal fluid, is a

major contributor to mortality in American men. It typically impacts males

aged 66 and older, but can manifest sooner in individuals with risk factors,

leading to screenings starting at age 45 for those at high risk. Screening

consists of PSA blood tests first, with digital rectal exams and

ultrasonography as necessary thereafter. Options for treatment include

androgen deprivation therapy and radical prostatectomies, chosen according to

the cancer type and degree.

Gift et al., (2020) conducted a research at Kitwe Teaching Hospital in Zambia

to assess the understanding, behaviors, and beliefs regarding prostate cancer

screening in males over 40 years old. The cross-sectional research included

200 individuals, with just 33.5% having knowledge of prostate cancer and

13% undergoing screening in the previous two years. Although their

18
knowledge and practice levels were low, 98.5% displayed positive attitudes

towards screening. Higher screening rates were associated with factors like

older age, more education, greater knowledge, and a family history of cancer.

The results emphasize the importance of increasing public awareness

campaigns in Zambia to better inform people about prostate cancer and

detecting it early.

In the work of Jarb et al., (2022) titled: Awareness about prostate cancer and

its screening in Medina, Jeddah, and Makkah, Saudi Arabia population. The

research showed that there is a significant lack of knowledge and awareness

regarding prostate cancer (PCa). To tackle this issue, both community and

individual contributions are needed to increase awareness and understanding.

Suggested approaches involve raising awareness through campaigns, using

social media for spreading information, and promoting men’s participation in

early detection screening tests. Additionally, it is recommended to broaden

future studies to encompass a greater number of cities in Saudi Arabia in order

to obtain more precise and thorough results.

Also, Yeboah-Asiamah Asare & Mawufenya Ackumey, (2021) conducted a

study titled: Awareness and knowledge about prostate cancer among male

teachers in the Sunyani Municipality, Ghana. The research evaluate the

understanding and knowledge of prostate cancer (PC) among male educators

in the Sunyani municipality of Ghana revealed a notable deficiency in

awareness and comprehension of the condition. The results indicate that

19
specific educational initiatives and awareness efforts are needed to enhance

understanding of prostate cancer within this particular group. Having a better

understanding and more information is essential for spotting and treating

conditions early, leading to better health results.

The study, led by Assefa et al., (2022), aims to evaluate the level of

knowledge about prostate cancer and its correlated factors in men aged 40

years and above in Mizan Aman town, Bench Sheko zone, Southern Nations,

Nationalities, and Peoples’ Region, South West Ethiopia.

Sungur & Caliskan, (2020) found in their study titled: Awareness of prostate

cancer diagnosis and management among Turkish males: a cross sectional

study from Çorum found that Prostate cancer represents a significant health

challenge globally, particularly among men. This review aims to examine

current research and perspectives regarding the knowledge of prostate cancer

among men and the role of health ministries in enhancing preventive

measures.

In the work of Olarewaju et al., (2020) titled: Factors Influencing Uptake of

Prostate Cancer Screening among Adult Males in Iseyin LGA, Oyo State. Just

like numerous other societies, Iseyin struggles with the challenge of prostate

cancer. Even though the region has high rates of occurrence and death from

the disease, men are not taking full advantage of screening services. This

research aims to reveal the root causes of this phenomenon.

20
Maladze et al., (2023) also conducted a study titled: Knowledge and Attitudes

towards Prostate Cancer and Screening among Males in Limpopo Province,

South Africa. The research emphasizes the immediate requirement for

extensive public health approaches to target knowledge deficiencies and

improve screening participation in rural Limpopo among males. By increasing

knowledge, changing perceptions about the effectiveness of treatment, and

encouraging consistent screening, progress can be made in lessening the

impact of prostate cancer deaths in marginalized communities.

It can be found in the work of Onyeodi et al., (2022) that Prostate cancer is a

major cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, and Nigeria is especially

impacted in Africa. This assessment explores understanding, beliefs, and

screening behaviors related to prostate cancer among males in an urban area in

Lagos, Nigeria, with the goal of identifying areas where preventive healthcare

measures can be enhanced.

The research carried out at King Abdulaziz Medical City in Riyadh, Saudi

Arabia, by Musalli et al., (2021) explored the complex terrain of prostate

cancer awareness and screening practices among male patients visiting

primary care facilities. Conducted by Ziyad F. Musalli and his team, the study

sought to shed light on the level of awareness, beliefs, and behaviors related to

prostate cancer screening.

Adedeji et al., (2021) did a work titled: Men in rural Nigeria have a poor

perception of prostate cancer risk; Hence they seldom seek screening. The

21
research used a descriptive cross-sectional approach to investigate the factors

influencing prostate cancer (PCa) screening behavior in rural men in

Southwest Nigeria. Researchers collected data from 384 men living in six

rural communities in the area through the use of a questionnaire administered

by an interviewer.

In the work of Hagger et al., (2022) titled: Perceived behavioral control

moderating effects in the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analysis.. This

meta-analysis offers strong empirical evidence for how perceived behavioral

control influences the translation of intentions into health behaviors, as

suggested by the Theory of Planned Behavior. The research supports the need

for ongoing studies to further understand these connections in various health

behavior situations and among different demographic groups, providing

thorough understanding of the mechanisms of behavior change.

Mbugua et al., (2021) conducted a study titled: Prostate cancer awareness and

screening among men in a rural community in Kenya: a cross-sectional study.

The primary objective of this cross-sectional study conducted by Ruth

Gathoni Mbugua, Sherry Oluchina, and Simon Karanja was to evaluate the

extent of prostate cancer (PC) awareness and screening in men between the

ages of 40 and 69 residing in a rural area in Kenya. The research used both

quantitative surveys and qualitative Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) to

investigate attitudes and actions towards PC awareness and screening,

implementing a mixed-method approach.

22
A recent study by Erena et al., (2020) in Kenya investigated the levels of

awareness and screening practices for prostate cancer among males aged 15 to

54 years. The results revealed a contradictory situation: although 61.9% of

men showed knowledge of prostate cancer, the actual screening rates were

worrying, with only 3.9% of those informed stating they had been screened.

In the work of Ojong et al., (2020) titled: Prostate cancer awareness and

screening practice among Kenyan men. The study aimed to assess the

knowledge, attitudes, and practices of routine health check-ups among

healthcare workers (including doctors, nurses, radiographers, lab scientists,

pharmacists, medical record officers, and health assistants) at a tertiary health

facility in Calabar, Nigeria. It explored how these professionals perceive the

effectiveness of routine check-ups in preventing illness and promoting health.

The research aimed to identify gaps in knowledge, assess attitudes towards

check-ups, and evaluate actual adherence to recommended practices among

healthcare providers. This information could guide interventions to improve

preventive healthcare practices and overall health outcomes among healthcare

workers in Nigeria.

23
 CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.0 Introduction

This section of the research focuses on the research design, research settings,

target population, sampling size, sampling size technique, instruments for data

collection, validity of the instrument, reliability of the instrument, method of

data collection, method of data analysis and ethical considerations.

3.1 Research Design

This study adopted a descriptive cross-sectional design to examine the

awareness and practice of prostate self-examination among male staff of

Ladoke Akintola University of Technology above 40 years. This design is

suitable for collecting data from the population at a single point in time and

exploring the relationships between different variables.

3.2 Research Setting

The research was conducted at Ladoke Akintola University of Technology

(LAUTECH), Ogbomoso, Nigeria. This location was selected due to the

diverse male population of staff, and students, especially those in the age

24
group at risk for prostate cancer. Ladoke Akintola University of Technology

(LAUTECH) is a premier public institution in Nigeria, dedicated to higher

education and research. Established on April 23, 1990, as Oyo State

University of Technology (OSUTECH), its name changed following the

formation of Osun State in 1991. LAUTECH became fully owned by Oyo

State on November 20, 2020, after an agreement with Osun State. The

university has earned numerous accolades, including being the top state

university and university of technology in Nigeria, 4th overall in the country,

and 74th in Africa for research. With a student body of approximately 30,000

and over 3,000 esteemed staff members, LAUTECH offers a wide range of

degree programs across twelve faculties. The university operates from its

main campus in Ogbomoso and a newly established campus in Iseyin for the

College of Agriculture and Renewable Natural Resources.

3.3 Target Population

The target population for this study includes all-male staff aged 40 years and

above at LAUTECH, Ogbomoso during the study period. This age group is

chosen because the risk of prostate cancer increases with age from 40 years.

3.4 Sample Size Determination

The sample size was determined using the formula for cross-sectional

studies:

25
n = Z2Pq / d2

where:

n = the desired sample size

Z = the standard normal deviate, usually set at 1.96 (or more simply at 2.0)

which corresponds to the 95% confidence level

P = estimated prevalence of prostate cancer among the population (50% or

0.50 for maximum sample size)

q (1.0 – Pd) = margin of error or the degree of accuracy desired (0.05)

Substituting the values:

n = (1.96)2(0.50) (0.50) / (0.05)2

n = 384

An attrition rate of 10% was used as we dealt with humans, so, the sample

size was increased by 10%, resulting in a final sample size of approximately

422 participants.

3.5 Sampling Techniques

A convenience sampling technique was employed to select participants for

this study. Data collection focuses on male staff members aged 40 years and

above who were readily accessible and available at the research site during

the study period. Upon arrival, researcher identified eligible male staff within

this age group who was present and willing to participate. Each potential

26
participant was approached individually, informed about the study, and

invited to participate if they meet the inclusion criteria.

3.6 Data Collection Instrument

A structured questionnaire was employed for data collection. to assess the

level of awareness and practice and identify barriers to prostate self-

examination among male staff of Ladoke Akintola University of Technology

above 40 years. The questionnaire contains four sections as distributed below:

SECTION A: Questions on demographic information was asked in this

section.

SECTION B: This section contains questions on the awareness of prostate

self-examination.

SECTION C: This section contains questions that focus on the practice of

prostate self-examination.

SECTION D: This section contains questions on the barriers to the practice of

prostate self-examination.

3.7 Validity of Instrument

In order to ensure that the research instrument is valid and effective, the

instrument was constructed based on the research specific objectives, it was

examined by my supervisor who ascertained the face validity of the

instrument and appropriate corrections and modifications were made based on

27
my supervisor's suggestions. The content validity of the questionnaire was

determined by experts in statistics and medical surgical nursing.

3.8 Reliability of Instrument

To ensure reliability, a test-retest procedure was conducted with a small

sample of men from Bowen University, Ogbomoso, Oyo State, and the

consistency of responses was measured using Cronbach's alpha of which a

value of 0.70 and above was considered reliable.

3.9 Data Collection Method

On arrival to the research settings, after necessary protocols have been duly

observed, the objectives of the study was carefully explained to the selected

participants and their consent was sought. A self-administered questionnaire

was then distributed to the participants based on their availability at the time

of data collection. Within a period of 30-45 minutes, the questionnaire has

been filled out and was collected promptly.

3.10 Method of Data Analysis

The collected data was entered into a computerized database and was

analyzed using SPSS software, 22nd Edition. The analysis involve employing

descriptive methods (frequency, percentages, means and standard deviations)

and inferential statistical methods (e.g., chi-square method, regression

28
analysis, t-test etc.) with the results being showcased through percentages,

frequencies, and charts to explore the relationships between socio-

demographic factors and prostate cancer screening uptake. A p-value of <0.05

will be considered statistically significant.

3.10 Ethical Considerations

A letter of introduction was collected from the Faculty of Nursing Science,

LAUTECH and was given to the ethical committee of LAUTECH. Informed

consent was secured from each participant after explaining the study's

purpose, procedures, potential risks, and benefits. Participation was voluntary,

and participants had the right to withdraw at any time without consequences.

Also, all information gotten from the subject was kept confidential and treated

anonymously.

29
 CHAPTER FOUR

ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF DATA

4.0 Introduction

This chapter deals with the analysis of collected data and presentation of

results with the use of percentages, frequencies and are displayed using

frequency tables. Relationships between variables were determined using

Pearson’s chi square with level of significance set at 0.05 to determine the

level of statistical significance. This section also answers all the research

questions.

30
Data were computer-analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences

(SPSS) 21.0 version.

A total of 422 respondents were recruited and all the respondents completed

the questionnaires and had adequate data for analysis. This translates to a

response rate of 100%.

4.1 Presentation and Interpretation of Results

Table 4.1 Sociodemographic Variables

Variables Categries Frequency Percentage (%)

40-50 years 124 29.4%

Age 50-60 years 188 44.5%

60 years and above 110 26.1%

Marital status Single 58 13.9%
Married 186 44.5%
Divorced 95 22.7%

31
 Widowed 79 18.9%
Lecturer 25 6.0%
Administrative staff 23 5.5%
Position held at work
Technical staff 136 32.6%
Others 233 55.9%
No formal education 0 0.00%

Primary education 165 39.1%

Educational level
Secondary education 206 48.8%

Tertiary education 51 12.1%

Table 4.1 shows the demographic variables of the participants. The majority

of participants (44.5%) were between the ages of 50-60, followed by those

aged 40-50 (29.4%) and 60+ (26.1%). Most respondents were married

(44.5%), with a significant proportion divorced (22.7%) or widowed (18.9%).

The largest group was under "Other" positions (55.9%), while technical staff

represented 32.6%. Education levels were notably high, with all respondents

possessing a level of education; most had secondary (48.8%), followed by

primary (39.1%) education and tertiary education (12.1%).

Table 4.2: Awareness of Prostate Self-Examination

Variables Categories Frequency Percentage (%)

32
 Have you heard of prostate self- No 242 57.3%
examination? Yes 180 42.7%
Healthcare provider 79 40.3%
Media 39 19.9%
If yes, how did you hear about it? Friends/family 24 12.2%
Educational institutions 28 14.3%
Others 26 13.3%
Do you know the purpose of prostate No 226 53.6%
self-examination? Yes 196 46.4%

How important do you think prostate Very important 68 16.1%

self-examination is for early detection of Important 139 32.9%
prostate issues? Not important 215 50.9%

Table 4.2 above describes the awareness of prostate self-examination among

the participants. It can be deduced from the table that a slight majority of

participants (57.3%) had not heard of prostate self-examination (PSE), and

among those aware, 40.3% learned through healthcare providers. Only 46.4%

understood the purpose of PSE, and 50.9% viewed it as unimportant,

suggesting low perceived importance and limited understanding about the

procedure's role in early detection.

33
Table 4.3: Practice of Prostate Self-Examination

Variables Categories Frequency Percentage (%)

Do you perform prostate self- No 264 62.6%

examination? Yes 158 37.4%
Monthly 17 9.3%
Every 3 months 27 14.8%
If yes, how often do you perform the
Every 6 months 76 41.5%
examination?
Annually 35 19.1%
Others 28 15.3%
Not aware of how to perform it 243 93.8%
Not necessary 8 3.1%
If no, why not? Fear 8 3.1%
Lack of time 0 0.0%
Others 0 0.0%
Healthcare provider 93 49.5%
Instructional materials 14 7.4%
Who taught you how to perform
Family/friends 35 18.6%
prostate self-examination?
Self-taught 31 16.5%
Others 15 8.0%
Very confident 129 31.2%

How confident are you in performing Confident 260 62.8%

the examination? Somehow confident 25 6.0%

Not confident 0 0.0%

The table above indicates the practice of prostate self-examination among

male staffs of LAUTECH above 40 years.. it shows that Most respondents

(62.6%) did not practice PSE. Of those practicing, 41.5% did so every six

months, with some performing it annually (19.1%) or every three months

(14.8%). Lack of awareness (93.8%) was the predominant reason for non-

34
practice. Nearly half of the practitioners learned from healthcare providers,

with family/friends and self-teaching also contributing to knowledge transfer.

A majority (62.8%) felt confident, but only 31.2% reported high confidence.

Table 4.4: Barriers to Prostate Self-Examination

Variables Categories Frequency Percentages (%)

Is lack of knowledge a barrier to the practice of No 18 4.3%

prostate self-examination? Yes 404 95.7%
Is cultural belief a barrier to the practice of No 45 10.9%
prostate self-examination? Yes 367 89.1%
Is fear a barrier to the practice of prostate self- No 25 6.1%
examination? Yes 383 93.9%
Is lack of time a barrier to the practice of No 361 87.2%
prostate self-examination? Yes 53 12.8%
Is financial constraints a barrier to the practice No 391 95.6%
of prostate self-examination? Yes 18 4.4%
Is lack of healthcare services a barrier to the No 35 8.7%
practice of prostate self-examination? Yes 368 91.3%

Table 4.4 summarises the barriers to prostate self-examination. Knowledge

deficiency was identified by 95.7% as a major barrier, followed by cultural

beliefs (89.1%), and fear (93.9%). Most did not view time (87.2%) or

financial constraints (95.6%) as significant barriers, but lack of healthcare

services (91.3%) was noted as a substantial challenge.

35
4.2: Testing of Hypotheses

H01: There is no significant difference between the level of awareness and

practice of prostate self-examination among the male staff of Ladoke Akintola

University of Technology above 40 years.

Table 4.5: Hypothesis 1 Testing

Do you perform prostate self- Total 2

Df PV
examination?
X

50.720 2 0.
No Yes

40-50 years 81 43 124

Age 50-60 years 144 44 188

60 years and above 39 71 110

Total 264 158 422

36
The analysis from the above table showed a significant association (p < 0.05)

between age and practice, with a p-value of 0.000. Therefore,the above

hypothesis will be accepted implying that those aged 60 and above were more

likely to practice prostate self-examination than younger age groups.

H02: There is no significant difference between the age and the practice of

prostate self-examination among the male staff of Ladoke Akintola University

of Technology above 40 years.

Table 4.6: Hypothesis 2 Testing

Have you heard of prostate self- Total 2

Df PV
examination?
X

39.389 2 0.0
No Yes

40-50 years 67 57 124

Age 50-60 years 136 52 188

60 years and above 39 71 110

37
Total 242 180 422

Also, a significant relationship was found between awareness and practice,

with a p-value of 0.003. All participants who practiced had heard of prostate

self-examination, emphasizing the impact of awareness on the practice.

Therefore, the above hypothesis will also be accepted.

Generally, the data analysis revealed significant relationships between both

age and PSE practice and awareness and practice (p = 0.000). Older

respondents (60+ years) were more likely to engage in PSE, highlighting a

positive correlation between age and PSE. Additionally, awareness proved

essential to practice, as all practitioners had prior knowledge of PSE.

4.3 Answering of Research Questions

Research Question 1: What is the level of awareness of prostate self-

examination among male staff of Ladoke Akintola University of Technology

above 40 years?

The level of awareness of prostate self-examination among male staff above

40 years at LAUTECH is relatively low. According to the data, only 57.3% of

participants reported no prior knowledge. For those aware, healthcare

providers were the most common source (40.3%). This low awareness rate,

associated with limited understanding of PSE's purpose and importance,

38
suggests the need for increased educational outreach and awareness programs

targeting prostate health.

Research Question 2: How well do the male staff of Ladoke Akintola

University of Technology above 40 years practice prostate self-examination?

The practice of PSE among the surveyed male staff is limited. Only 37.4% of

respondents reported practicing PSE, with irregularity in frequency. The

majority (41.5%) performed the exam every six months, though others

adhered to less consistent intervals. The predominant reason for non-practice

was a lack of knowledge on performing PSE, indicating that even basic

information about the examination technique and importance is insufficient

among this population.

Research Question 3: What are the perceived barriers to prostate self-

examination among male staff of LAUTECH above 40 years?

From the data, the key barriers identified include lack of knowledge (95.7%),

cultural beliefs (89.1%), and fear (93.9%). These reflect not only

informational gaps but also significant cultural and psychological deterrents.

Accessibility to healthcare services (91.3%) was also noted as a major barrier,

which further complicates the likelihood of regular screening practices. Minor

barriers included time constraints and financial limitations.

39
 CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

5.0 Introduction

This aspect of the research focuses on the discussion of the findings,

summary, conclusion, limitations, implications for the Nursing profession,

and recommendations for future works.

5.1 Discussion

The aim of this study is to assess awareness, practice, and perceived barriers

to prostate self-examination (PSE) among male staff above 40 at Ladoke

Akintola University of Technology (LAUTECH). The findings reveal critical

gaps in PSE awareness and practices among this demographic, evaluating the

need for targeted health education initiatives and cultural interventions to

40
improve PSE uptake. Three key objectives guided the study, which are:

understanding the level of awareness, evaluating the practice of PSE, and

identifying barriers to PSE practice.

The first objective — examining awareness of PSE among male staff over 40

— revealed a generally low awareness level, with only 42.7% of respondents

indicating they had heard of PSE. Among those aware, healthcare providers

emerged as the primary source of information (40.3%), followed by media

(19.9%) and friends or family (12.2%). Notably, only 46.4% of participants

understood the purpose of PSE, and half of the respondents (50.9%) perceived

it as unimportant for early detection. This low awareness, in conjuction with a

limited understanding of the examination’s significance, suggests that critical

information on prostate health may not be effectively reaching this

population. This is supported by the work of Onyeodi et al. (2022), who also

observed limited knowledge of prostate cancer screening among men in

Lagos, Nigeria. In line with this finding, Gift et al. (2020) in Zambia found

that only 33.5% of male participants had any awareness of prostate cancer,

highlighting a common challenge across African settings where men often

lack vital information on prostate health and preventive measures.

The second objective focused on the actual practice of PSE. Findings show

that while some male staff practiced PSE, a substantial proportion (62.6%) did

not engage in the practice at all. Among the minority practicing PSE (37.4%),

the frequency varied, with 41.5% performing it every six months and smaller

41
percentages opting for annual (19.1%) or quarterly (14.8%) examinations.

These variations in practice frequency indicate that those who are aware of

PSE may still lack clear guidelines or confidence on how often it should be

performed. Importantly, the primary reason for non-practice was a lack of

awareness of how to perform PSE, reported by 93.8% of those not practicing.

This lack of practice knowledge emphasizes an informational barrier, as

without accessible training or guidelines, even those who have heard of PSE

may find it challenging to perform. This aligns with the study by Ojong et al.

(2020), which found that health workers in Nigeria identified inadequate

knowledge as a central barrier to screening practices. Likewise, the study by

Erena et al. (2020) in Kenya reported that while 61.9% of men knew about

prostate cancer, only 3.9% had undergone screening, indicating a similar

discrepancy between awareness and action.

The third objective was to identify barriers hindering PSE practice. The

findings highlight that knowledge deficiency was the predominant barrier,

identified by 95.7% of respondents. This knowledge gap may reflect the lack

of comprehensive health communication campaigns specific to PSE. Cultural

beliefs (89.1%) and fear (93.9%) were also cited as significant barriers,

suggesting that both psychological and societal factors deter men from

engaging in PSE. A notable 91.3% of respondents mentioned inadequate

access to healthcare services as a barrier, which implies a logistical challenge

in addition to informational and psychological obstacles. However, other

42
barriers, such as lack of time (87.2%) and financial constraints (95.6%), were

perceived as less relevant. This is in line with the work of Yeboah-Asiamah

and Ackumey (2021), who observed that cultural beliefs and fear of diagnosis

were substantial barriers among male teachers in Ghana. Similarly, the study

by Assefa et al. (2022) in Ethiopia emphasized that limited healthcare services

impede proactive health practices, which parallels the experiences of male

staff at LAUTECH. Such findings indicate that PSE practices are not only

limited by personal and cultural perceptions but are further compounded by

healthcare accessibility issues.

The analysis of statistical associations supports the impact of awareness and

age on PSE practice. There was a significant relationship between age and

practice, with those aged 60 and above being more likely to engage in PSE, as

evidenced by a p-value of 0.000. This association may be attributed to an

increased awareness of health risks with age, which aligns with previous

findings that older men tend to be more health-conscious. Additionally,

awareness had a statistically significant impact on PSE practice (p = 0.003),

confirming that those who were aware of PSE were more likely to practice it.

This is supported by the findings of Olarewaju et al. (2020), who noted that

men who understood the risks associated with prostate health were more

likely to engage in preventive health measures.

In conclusion, the study shows a clear gap in PSE awareness and practice

among male staff at LAUTECH, primarily driven by informational, cultural,

43
and psychological barriers. Addressing these challenges requires multifaceted

approaches that incorporate culturally sensitive health education,

psychological support, and improved access to healthcare services. By

aligning public health efforts with these findings, it is possible to foster a

more proactive approach to prostate health within this population and

encourage earlier detection and [Link], the discussion highlights

that addressing PSE awareness and practices requires not only information

dissemination but also interventions that account for cultural, psychological,

and healthcare accessibility factors. This comprehensive approach may foster

more sustainable changes in prostate health behaviors, particularly among

populations with limited existing knowledge or support for preventive health

practices.

5.2 Summary

The study highlights low awareness and practice of PSE among male staff at

LAUTECH, with major barriers including lack of knowledge, cultural beliefs,

and fear. Awareness significantly influenced practice, emphasizing the need

for targeted educational interventions to address informational and cultural

gaps, thus promoting prostate health practices.

44
5.3 Conclusion

This study underscores the need for increased awareness and education on

prostate health, especially PSE, among male staff above 40 years at

LAUTECH. Addressing cultural and psychological barriers is essential to

improving PSE uptake. Educational programs tailored to this demographic

can bridge knowledge gaps, reduce misconceptions, and foster a proactive

approach to prostate health.

5.4 Implications for Nursing Practice

For nursing practice, the findings highlight the role of nurses in promoting

prostate health. Nurses can conduct targeted awareness campaigns, develop

culturally sensitive educational materials, and provide one-on-one guidance

on PSE techniques. Addressing common barriers such as fear and cultural

stigma through open communication and reassurance can support early

detection and improve health outcomes.

5.5 Limitations to the Study

This study’s cross-sectional design limits its ability to capture changes in

awareness and practice over time. Additionally, the focus on LAUTECH staff

may limit the generalizability of findings. Self-reported data may also be

subject to response bias, as respondents may overreport or underreport their

health practices.

45
5.6 Recommendations for Future Studies

Future studies could adopt longitudinal designs to assess changes in PSE

awareness and practices over time. Expanding the study to include other

universities and different demographics could provide broader insights into

PSE practices in Nigeria. Additionally, qualitative research exploring

individuals' experiences and perceptions of PSE may offer deeper insights

into the personal and social factors affecting practice.

46
 REFERENCES

Adedeji, I. A., Lawal, S. A., Aluko‐Arowolo, S., & Oduwole, E. O. (2021).

Men in rural Nigeria have a poor perception of prostate cancer risk;

Hence they seldom seek screening. Psycho-Oncology, 30(5), 773–779.

[Link]

Assefa, A., Germossa, G. N., Ayenew, M., & Bedada, G. B. (2022).

Awareness of prostate cancer and its associated factors among men 40

years of age and older in Mizan Aman town, Bench Sheko zone,

Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples’ Region, South West

Ethiopia, 2019. Frontiers in Oncology, 12, 976810.

[Link]

Erena, A. N., Shen, G., & Lei, P. (2020). Prostate cancer awareness and

screening practice among Kenyan men. European Journal of Cancer

Prevention, 29(3), 252–258.

[Link]

Gift, S., Nancy, K., & Victor, M. (2020). Assessment of knowledge, practice

and attitude towards prostate cancer screening among male patients

aged 40 years and above at Kitwe Teaching Hospital, Zambia. African

Journal of Urology, 26(1), 70. [Link]

00067-0

47
Hagger, M. S., Cheung, M. W.-L., Ajzen, I., & Hamilton, K. (2022).

Perceived behavioral control moderating effects in the theory of

planned behavior: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology, 41(2), 155–

167. [Link]

Jarb, A., Aljuaid, A., Alghamdi, S., Almathami, A., Altawili, A., & Alesawi,

A. (2022). Awareness about prostate cancer and its screening in

Medina, Jeddah, and Makkah, Saudi Arabia population. Urology

Annals, 14(1), 27. [Link]

Kaler, J., Hussain, A., Haque, A., Naveed, H., & Patel, S. (2020). A

Comprehensive Review of Pharmaceutical and Surgical Interventions

of Prostate Cancer. Cureus. [Link]

Maladze, N., Maphula, A., Maluleke, M., & Makhado, L. (2023). Knowledge

and Attitudes towards Prostate Cancer and Screening among Males in

Limpopo Province, South Africa. International Journal of

Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(6), 5220.

[Link]

Mbugua, R. G., Oluchina, S., & Karanja, S. (2021). Prostate cancer awareness

and screening among men in a rural community in Kenya: A cross-

sectional study. African Journal of Urology, 27(1), 7.

[Link]

Musalli, Z. F., Alobaid, M. M., Aljahani, A. M., Alqahtani, M. A., Alshehri,

S. S., & Altulaihi, B. A. (2021). Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice

48
 Toward Prostate Cancer and Its Screening Methods Among Primary

Care Patients in King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Cureus. [Link]

Ojong, I. N., Nsemo, A. D., & Aji, P. (2020). Routine Medical Checkup

Knowledge, Attitude and Practice among Health Care Workers in a

Tertiary Health Facility in Calabar, Cross River State, Nigeria. Global

Journal of Health Science, 12(8), 27.

[Link]

Olarewaju, S. O., Akinola, A. D., Oyekunle, E. O., & Adeyemo, S. C. (2020).

Factors Influencing Uptake of Prostate Cancer Screening among Adult

Males in Iseyin LGA, Oyo State. Research Journal of Health Sciences,

8(4), 243–252. [Link]

Onyeodi, I., Akintelure, S., Oladipo, A., & Fashola, T. (2022). Knowledge,

Attitude and Screening Practices of Prostate Cancer among Men in an

Urban Community in Lagos, Nigeria. Journal of Community Medicine

and Primary Health Care, 34(3), 82–97.

[Link]

Sungur, M., & Caliskan, S. (2020). Awareness of prostate cancer diagnosis

and management among Turkish males: A cross sectional study from

Çorum. The Aging Male, 23(3), 202–205.

[Link]

49
Yeboah-Asiamah Asare, B., & Mawufenya Ackumey, M. (2021). Awareness

and knowledge about prostate cancer among male teachers in the

Sunyani Municipality, Ghana. African Health Sciences, 21(2), 655–

662. [Link]

50
 APPENDIX I

QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE AWARENESS AND

PRACTICE OF PROSTATE SELF-EXAMINATION

AMONG MALE STAFF OF LADOKE AKINTOLA

UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY ABOVE 40 YEARS

Dear Respondent,

I am a 400-level student of the Faculty of Nursing Science, Ladoke Akintola

University of Technology, Ogbomoso. I am conducting a research on the

topic: Awareness and Practice of prostate self-examination among male

staff of Ladoke Akintola University of Technology above 40 years. This

questionnaire is designed solely for data collection. Hence, all data collected

will be solely for the purpose of academic research and will be treated with

optimum anonymity and confidentiality. I will be grateful if you respond to

the items in the questionnaire.

Yours faithfully,

Adewale Abdus-samad Adetomiwa.

SECTION A: DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES

Instruction: Kindly tick the appropriate answer

51
1. Age: _____________

2. Marital status: ( ) Single ( ) Married ( ) Divorced ( ) Widower

3. Position: ( ) Lecturer ( ) Administrative staff ( ) Technical staff ( ) Other

(Please specify) ______________

4. Educational level: ( ) No formal education ( ) Primary education ( )

Secondary education ( ) Tertiary education.

SECTION B: Awareness of Prostate Self-Examination

Instruction: Kindly tick the appropriate answer

5. Have you heard of prostate self-examination? ( ) Yes ( ) No

6. If yes, where did you hear about it? ( ) Healthcare provider ( ) Media ( )

Friends/ family ( ) Educational institutions ( ) Others (Please specify)

______________

7. Do you know the purpose of prostate self-examination? ( ) Yes ( ) No

8. How important do you think prostate self-examination is for early

detection of prostate issues? ( ) Very important ( ) Important ( ) Not

important.

SECTION C: Practice of Prostate Self-Examination

Instruction: Kindly tick the right option as applied to you

9. Do you perform prostate self-examination? ( ) Yes ( ) No

52
10. If yes, how often do you perform the examination? ( ) Monthly ( ) Every

3 months ( ) Every 6 months ( ) Annually ( ) Others (Please specify)

________________

11. If no, why not? ( ) Not aware of how to perform it ( ) Not necessary ( )

Fear ( ) Lack of time ( ) Others (Please specify) _______________

12. Who taught you how to perform prostate self-examination? ( ) Healthcare

provider ( ) Instructional materials ( ) Family/friends ( ) Self-taught ( )

Others (Please specify) _____________

13. How confident are you in performing the examination? ( ) Very confident

( ) Confident ( ) Somehow confident ( ) Not confident.

SECTION D: Barriers to the practice of Prostate self-examination

Instruction: Kindly tick the appropriate answer

S/N VARIABLES YES NO

14. Lack of knowledge

15. Cultural beliefs

16. Fear

17. Lack of time

53
18. Financial constraints

19. Lack of healthcare services

54
 APPENDIX II

PILOT STUDY

A pilot study was conducted to test the reliability of the instrument. 10% of

the sample size was used which equals 10 questionnaires, which were equally

administered to male staff of LAUTECH who are not part of those involved in

the main study. This was done to identify the ambiguity in the question before

the whole questionnaire was administered.

The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient is 0.722, which indicates that the

instruments for data collection are reliable and thus, suitable for use.

Reliability Statistics

55
Cronbach's Cronbach's N of Items

Alpha Alpha Based

on

Standardized

Items

.722 .731 19

56