Literature DB >> 19023629

Variation in physician-patient discussion of breast reconstruction.

Judy Y Chen1, Jennifer Malin, Patricia A Ganz, Clifford Ko, Diana Tisnado, May Lin Tao, Martha Timmer, John L Adams, Katherine L Kahn.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: For women with early stage breast cancer, physician-patient discussion of breast reconstruction is an essential step in their participation in the decision-making process for their treatments. This study examines sociodemographic variation of physician-patient discussion of breast reconstruction and explores the impact of this discussion on the use of breast reconstruction.
METHODS: We used data from the Los Angeles Women's Study, a population-based study of women 50 years and older with breast cancer. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to estimate the impact of patient and hospital characteristics on self-reported receipt of physician-patient discussion and use of breast reconstruction.
RESULTS: Of 315 post-mastectomy women, 81% and 27% reported physician-patient discussion and use of breast reconstruction, respectively. In multivariable analysis, women with an annual income <$20,000 were less likely to have physician-patient discussion than women with annual income > or =$40,000 (OR = 0.23, 95% CI 0.07-0.82). Among the subset of women with physician-patient discussion, chest wall radiation, a known characteristic associated with higher rates of reconstruction complications, became an additional significant negative predictor of reconstruction.
CONCLUSIONS: Lower income women are at risk of not receiving physician-patient discussion of breast reconstruction. Physician-patient discussion of breast reconstruction appears to decrease the use of breast reconstruction among women with clinical characteristics associated with higher rates of reconstruction complications and failure. This highlights the need for interventions to increase physician-patient discussion of breast reconstruction among lower income women.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19023629      PMCID: PMC2607520          DOI: 10.1007/s11606-008-0855-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  33 in total

Review 1.  Psychological aspects of breast reconstruction: a review of the literature.

Authors:  D Harcourt; N Rumsey
Journal:  J Adv Nurs       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 3.187

2.  Unwarranted variations in healthcare delivery: implications for academic medical centres.

Authors:  John E Wennberg
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-10-26

3.  Radiotherapy and immediate two-stage breast reconstruction with a tissue expander and implant: complications and esthetic results.

Authors:  Agnès V Tallet; Naji Salem; Vincent Moutardier; Pascal Ananian; Anne-Chantal Braud; Remy Zalta; Didier Cowen; Gilles Houvenaeghel
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2003-09-01       Impact factor: 7.038

4.  Developing a system to assess the quality of cancer care: ASCO's national initiative on cancer care quality.

Authors:  Eric C Schneider; Jennifer L Malin; Katherine L Kahn; Ezekiel J Emanuel; Arnold M Epstein
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2004-08-01       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics.

Authors:  C H Braddock; K A Edwards; N M Hasenberg; T L Laidley; W Levinson
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999 Dec 22-29       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Results of the National Initiative for Cancer Care Quality: how can we improve the quality of cancer care in the United States?

Authors:  Jennifer L Malin; Eric C Schneider; Arnold M Epstein; John Adams; Ezekiel J Emanuel; Katherine L Kahn
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2006-01-09       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Prospective analysis of psychosocial outcomes in breast reconstruction: one-year postoperative results from the Michigan Breast Reconstruction Outcome Study.

Authors:  E G Wilkins; P S Cederna; J C Lowery; J A Davis; H M Kim; R S Roth; S Goldfarb; P H Izenberg; H P Houin; K W Shaheen
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 4.730

8.  Psychological response to breast reconstruction. Expectations for and impact on postmastectomy functioning.

Authors:  J H Rowland; J C Holland; T Chaglassian; D Kinne
Journal:  Psychosomatics       Date:  1993 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.386

9.  Do variations in provider discussions explain socioeconomic disparities in postmastectomy breast reconstruction?

Authors:  Caprice C Greenberg; Eric C Schneider; Stuart R Lipsitz; Clifford Y Ko; Jennifer L Malin; Arnold M Epstein; Jane C Weeks; Katherine L Kahn
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2008-02-01       Impact factor: 6.113

10.  The national utilization of immediate and early delayed breast reconstruction and the effect of sociodemographic factors.

Authors:  Amy K Alderman; Laurence McMahon; Edwin G Wilkins
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 4.730

View more
  15 in total

Review 1.  Preoperative patient education for breast reconstruction: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Beth Aviva Preminger; Valerie Lemaine; Isabel Sulimanoff; Andrea L Pusic; Colleen M McCarthy
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 2.037

2.  How Informed Is the Decision About Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy?: A Prospective, Cross-sectional Study.

Authors:  Clara Nan-Hi Lee; Peter Anthony Ubel; Allison M Deal; Lillian Burdick Blizard; Karen R Sepucha; David W Ollila; Michael Patrick Pignone
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 12.969

3.  The effect of system-level access factors on receipt of reconstruction among Latina and white women with DCIS.

Authors:  Celia Patricia Kaplan; Leah S Karliner; E Shelley Hwang; Joan Bloom; Susan Stewart; Dana Nickleach; Jessica Quinn; Angela Thrasher; Anna Maria Nápoles
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2011-04-28       Impact factor: 4.872

4.  A model of knowledge acquisition in early stage breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Laura E Warren; Sheryl E Mendlinger; Katherine A Corso; Caprice C Greenberg
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2012 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.431

5.  Prevalence, predictors, and patient outcomes associated with physician co-management: findings from the Los Angeles Women's Health Study.

Authors:  Danielle E Rose; Diana M Tisnado; May L Tao; Jennifer L Malin; John L Adams; Patricia A Ganz; Katherine L Kahn
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2011-12-15       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 6.  Developing a theoretical framework to illustrate associations among patient satisfaction, body image and quality of life for women undergoing breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Michelle Cororve Fingeret; Summer W Nipomnick; Melissa A Crosby; Gregory P Reece
Journal:  Cancer Treat Rev       Date:  2013-02-04       Impact factor: 12.111

7.  Positive and negative aspects of well-being as correlates of breast reconstruction decision.

Authors:  Jolanta Zycinska; Ewa Gruszczynska; Alina Choteborska
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2013-12-29       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  Are patients making high-quality decisions about breast reconstruction after mastectomy? [outcomes article].

Authors:  Clara N Lee; Jeff Belkora; Yuchiao Chang; Beverly Moy; Ann Partridge; Karen Sepucha
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 4.730

9.  Quality of Patient Decisions About Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy.

Authors:  Clara Nan-Hi Lee; Allison M Deal; Ruth Huh; Peter Anthony Ubel; Yuen-Jong Liu; Lillian Blizard; Caprice Hunt; Michael Patrick Pignone
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2017-08-01       Impact factor: 14.766

10.  Accuracy of Predictions of Patients With Breast Cancer of Future Well-being After Immediate Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Clara Nan-Hi Lee; Michael Patrick Pignone; Allison M Deal; Lillian Blizard; Caprice Hunt; Ruth Huh; Yuen-Jong Liu; Peter Anthony Ubel
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2018-04-18       Impact factor: 14.766

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.