Katharine Yao1, Jeff Belkora2, Isabelle Bedrosian3, Shoshana Rosenberg4, Mark Sisco5, Ermilo Barrera5, Alexandra Kyrillios5, Jon Tilburt6, Chihsiung Wang7, Sarah Rabbitt5, Catherine Pesce5, Sandra Simovic5, David J Winchester5, Karen Sepucha8. 1. Department of Surgery, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA. kyao@northshore.org. 2. University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 4. Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Department of Surgery, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA. 6. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 7. Center for Biomedical Research Informatics, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA. 8. Massachusetts General Hospital, Health Decision Sciences Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies have reported that breast cancer patients have limited understanding about the oncologic outcomes following contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM). We hypothesized that an in-visit decision aid (DA) would be associated with higher patient knowledge about the anticipated short and long term outcomes of CPM. METHODS: We piloted a DA which used the SCOPED: (Situation, Choices, Objectives, People, Evaluation and Decision) framework. Knowledge, dichotomized as "low" (≤3 correct) versus "high" (≥4 correct), was assessed immediately after the visit by a 5 item survey. There were 97 DA patients (response rate 62.2 %) and 114 usual care (UC) patients (response rate 71.3 %). RESULTS: Patient demographic factors were similar between the two groups. Twenty-one (21.7 %) patients in the DA group underwent CPM compared with 18 (15.8 %) in the UC group (p = 0.22). Mean and median knowledge levels were significantly higher in the DA group compared with the UC group for patients of all ages, tumor stage, race, family history, anxiety levels, worry about CBC, and surgery type. Eighty-six (78.9 %) of UC versus 35 (37.9 %) DA patients had low knowledge. Of patients who underwent CPM, 15 (83.3 %) in the UC cohort versus 5 (25.0 %) of DA patients had "low" knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge was higher in the DA group. The UC group had approximately three times the number of patients of the DA group who were at risk for making a poorly informed decision to have CPM. Future studies should assess the impact of increased knowledge on overall CPM rates.
BACKGROUND: Studies have reported that breast cancerpatients have limited understanding about the oncologic outcomes following contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM). We hypothesized that an in-visit decision aid (DA) would be associated with higher patient knowledge about the anticipated short and long term outcomes of CPM. METHODS: We piloted a DA which used the SCOPED: (Situation, Choices, Objectives, People, Evaluation and Decision) framework. Knowledge, dichotomized as "low" (≤3 correct) versus "high" (≥4 correct), was assessed immediately after the visit by a 5 item survey. There were 97 DA patients (response rate 62.2 %) and 114 usual care (UC) patients (response rate 71.3 %). RESULTS:Patient demographic factors were similar between the two groups. Twenty-one (21.7 %) patients in the DA group underwent CPM compared with 18 (15.8 %) in the UC group (p = 0.22). Mean and median knowledge levels were significantly higher in the DA group compared with the UC group for patients of all ages, tumor stage, race, family history, anxiety levels, worry about CBC, and surgery type. Eighty-six (78.9 %) of UC versus 35 (37.9 %) DA patients had low knowledge. Of patients who underwent CPM, 15 (83.3 %) in the UC cohort versus 5 (25.0 %) of DA patients had "low" knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge was higher in the DA group. The UC group had approximately three times the number of patients of the DA group who were at risk for making a poorly informed decision to have CPM. Future studies should assess the impact of increased knowledge on overall CPM rates.
Authors: Rachel C Hooper; Jessica Hsu; Anthony Duncan; Jessica M Bensenhaver; Lisa A Newman; Kelly M Kidwell; Kevin C Chung; Adeyiza O Momoh Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Sharon L Manne; Barbara L Smith; Sara Frederick; Anna Mitarotondo; Deborah A Kashy; Laurie J Kirstein Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2020-05-20 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Ingrid M Lizarraga; Mary C Schroeder; Ismail Jatoi; Sonia L Sugg; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Laurel Hoeth; Elizabeth A Chrischilles Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-07-12 Impact factor: 5.344