Lucy Braude1, Laura Kirsten2, Jemma Gilchrist3, Ilona Juraskova4. 1. School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: lbra9325@uni.sydney.edu.au. 2. Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-based Decision-making (CeMPED), School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Nepean Cancer Care Centre, Sydney West Cancer Network, Sydney, Australia. 3. Norwest Private Hospital, Sydney, Australia. 4. School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-based Decision-making (CeMPED), School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies, to describe patient satisfaction and regret associated with risk-reducing mastectomies (RRM), and the patient-reported factors associated with these among women at high risk of developing breast cancer. METHODS: Studies were identified using Medline, CINAHL, Embase and PsycInfo databases (1995-2016). Data were extracted and crosschecked for accuracy. Article quality was assessed using standardised criteria. RESULTS: Of the 1657 unique articles identified, 30 studies met the inclusion criteria (n=23 quantitative studies, n=3 qualitative studies, n=4 mixed-method studies). Studies included were cross-sectional (n=23) or retrospective (n=7). General satisfaction with RRM, decision satisfaction and aesthetic satisfaction were generally high, although some women expressed regret around their decision and dissatisfaction with their appearance. Factors associated with both patient satisfaction and regret included: post-operative complications, body image changes, psychological distress and perceived inadequacy of information. CONCLUSION: While satisfaction with RRM was generally high, some women had regrets and expressed dissatisfaction. Future research is needed to further explore RRM, and to investigate current satisfaction trends given the ongoing improvements to surgical and clinical practice. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Offering pre-operative preparation, decisional support and continuous psychological input may help to facilitate satisfaction with this complex procedure.
OBJECTIVE: A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies, to describe patient satisfaction and regret associated with risk-reducing mastectomies (RRM), and the patient-reported factors associated with these among women at high risk of developing breast cancer. METHODS: Studies were identified using Medline, CINAHL, Embase and PsycInfo databases (1995-2016). Data were extracted and crosschecked for accuracy. Article quality was assessed using standardised criteria. RESULTS: Of the 1657 unique articles identified, 30 studies met the inclusion criteria (n=23 quantitative studies, n=3 qualitative studies, n=4 mixed-method studies). Studies included were cross-sectional (n=23) or retrospective (n=7). General satisfaction with RRM, decision satisfaction and aesthetic satisfaction were generally high, although some women expressed regret around their decision and dissatisfaction with their appearance. Factors associated with both patient satisfaction and regret included: post-operative complications, body image changes, psychological distress and perceived inadequacy of information. CONCLUSION: While satisfaction with RRM was generally high, some women had regrets and expressed dissatisfaction. Future research is needed to further explore RRM, and to investigate current satisfaction trends given the ongoing improvements to surgical and clinical practice. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Offering pre-operative preparation, decisional support and continuous psychological input may help to facilitate satisfaction with this complex procedure.
Authors: Mary C Schroeder; Yu-Yu Tien; Lillian M Erdahl; Ingrid M Lizarraga; Brahmendra R Viyyuri; Sonia L Sugg Journal: Surgery Date: 2020-08-18 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Anthony Howell; Ashu Gandhi; Sacha Howell; Mary Wilson; Anthony Maxwell; Susan Astley; Michelle Harvie; Mary Pegington; Lester Barr; Andrew Baildam; Elaine Harkness; Penelope Hopwood; Julie Wisely; Andrea Wilding; Rosemary Greenhalgh; Jenny Affen; Andrew Maurice; Sally Cole; Julia Wiseman; Fiona Lalloo; David P French; D Gareth Evans Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2020-12-09 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Tania Samantha de Silva; Victoria Rose Russell; Francis Patrick Henry; Paul Thomas Ryan Thiruchelvam; Dimitri John Hadjiminas; Ragheed Al-Mufti; Roselyn Katy Hogben; Judith Hunter; Simon Wood; Navid Jallali; Daniel Richard Leff Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2018-07-17 Impact factor: 5.344