PURPOSE: To discover missed opportunities for providing information to women undergoing breast reconstruction in an effort to decrease regret and improve patient education, teaching modalities, and satisfaction. METHOD: Thirty- to 45-minute semi-structured interviews were conducted exploring patient experiences with information provision on breast reconstruction. Purposeful sampling was used to include women with a variety of reconstruction types at different time points along their recovery. Using grounded theory methodology, 2 independent reviewers analyzed the transcripts and generated thematic codes based on patient responses. BREAST-Q scores were also collected to compare satisfaction scores with qualitative responses. RESULTS: Patients were interested in a wide variety of topics related to breast reconstruction including the pros and cons of different options, nipple-sparing mastectomies, immediate breast reconstruction, oncological safety/monitoring and the impact of chemotherapy and radiotherapy, secondary procedures (balancing, nipple reconstruction), post-operative recovery, and long-term expectations. Patients valued accessing information from multiple sources, seeing numerous photographs, being guided to reliable information online, and having access to a frequently asked questions file or document. Information delivery via interaction with medical personnel and previously reconstructed patients was most appreciated. Compared with BREAST-Q scores for satisfaction with the plastic surgeon (mean: 95.7, range: 60-100), informational satisfaction scores were lower at 74.7 (50-100), confirming the informational gaps expressed by interviewees. CONCLUSIONS: Women having recently undergone breast reconstruction reported key deficiencies in information provided prior to surgery and identified preferred information delivery options. Addressing women's educational needs is important to achieve appropriate expectations and improve satisfaction.
PURPOSE: To discover missed opportunities for providing information to women undergoing breast reconstruction in an effort to decrease regret and improve patient education, teaching modalities, and satisfaction. METHOD: Thirty- to 45-minute semi-structured interviews were conducted exploring patient experiences with information provision on breast reconstruction. Purposeful sampling was used to include women with a variety of reconstruction types at different time points along their recovery. Using grounded theory methodology, 2 independent reviewers analyzed the transcripts and generated thematic codes based on patient responses. BREAST-Q scores were also collected to compare satisfaction scores with qualitative responses. RESULTS: Patients were interested in a wide variety of topics related to breast reconstruction including the pros and cons of different options, nipple-sparing mastectomies, immediate breast reconstruction, oncological safety/monitoring and the impact of chemotherapy and radiotherapy, secondary procedures (balancing, nipple reconstruction), post-operative recovery, and long-term expectations. Patients valued accessing information from multiple sources, seeing numerous photographs, being guided to reliable information online, and having access to a frequently asked questions file or document. Information delivery via interaction with medical personnel and previously reconstructed patients was most appreciated. Compared with BREAST-Q scores for satisfaction with the plastic surgeon (mean: 95.7, range: 60-100), informational satisfaction scores were lower at 74.7 (50-100), confirming the informational gaps expressed by interviewees. CONCLUSIONS: Women having recently undergone breast reconstruction reported key deficiencies in information provided prior to surgery and identified preferred information delivery options. Addressing women's educational needs is important to achieve appropriate expectations and improve satisfaction.
Entities:
Keywords:
breast reconstruction; decision-making; information transfer; patient satisfaction; quality of life
Authors: Yeliz Cemal; Claudia R Albornoz; Joseph J Disa; Colleen M McCarthy; Babak J Mehrara; Andrea L Pusic; Peter G Cordeiro; Evan Matros Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Mark Sisco; Hongyan Du; Jeremy P Warner; Michael A Howard; David P Winchester; Katharine Yao Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2012-08-24 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Jacqueline A Ter Stege; Daniela B Raphael; Hester S A Oldenburg; Martine A van Huizum; Frederieke H van Duijnhoven; Daniela E E Hahn; Regina The; Klemens Karssen; Eveline M L Corten; Irene S Krabbe-Timmerman; Menno Huikeshoven; Quinten P Q Ruhé; Nikola A N Kimmings; Wies Maarse; Kerry A Sherman; Arjen J Witkamp; Leonie A E Woerdeman; Eveline M A Bleiker Journal: Health Expect Date: 2021-10-28 Impact factor: 3.377