Malou E Gelderblom1, Laura A M Van Lieshout2,3, Jurgen M J Piek3, Joanne A De Hullu2, Rosella P M G Hermens4. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Centre, PO Box 9101, 6500, HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Malou.gelderblom@radboudumc.nl. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Centre, PO Box 9101, 6500, HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Obstetrics and gynecology, Catharina Cancer Institute, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. 4. Department of IQ Health Care, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To prevent ovarian cancer, several international societies have issued guidelines which recommend to discuss opportunistic salpingectomy with women undergoing pelvic surgery after completion of childbearing. The opportunistic salpingectomy refers to the additional removal of Fallopian tubes during pelvic surgery for another indication to reduce the risk of developing ovarian cancer. These recommendations emphasize the importance of counselling on benefits and risks of opportunistic salpingectomy but offer no guidance on their implementation in daily practice. The lack of a tailored implementation strategy has resulted in a wide variation in current practice. To reduce this practice variation, we identified influencing factors on implementing opportunistic salpingectomy from patients' and professionals' perspectives. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-method study between 2019 and 2020 throughout the Netherlands. In a qualitative phase, we conducted interviews with gynecologic patients (N = 11) and their professionals (N = 20) to explore barriers and facilitators, using an interview guide. In the quantitative phase, we quantified these barriers and facilitators among patients who underwent a hysterectomy or sterilization and were counselled on the opportunistic salpingectomy (N = 77), and members of the Dutch Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology (N = 204), using questionnaires. For both phases, barriers and facilitators were classified into the following domains: innovation, patient, healthcare professional, social setting, organization, and economic and political context. RESULTS: For patients, main barriers were lack of knowledge about: the existence of the opportunistic salpingectomy (45%), size of the surgery (44%) and its associated possible disadvantages (37%). In addition, patients attributed their reluctance to concerns about the removal of healthy organs (46%). For professionals, main barriers were: patients' lack of knowledge of the size of surgery (85%) and its associated possible disadvantages (77%), the gap in evidence on long term risks and benefits (43%), the lack of feasibility in certain patients and during vaginal surgery (66%). Both patients (41%) and professionals (67%) identified the need for counselling material as facilitator. CONCLUSION: To reduce the variety in care regarding opportunistic salpingectomy, consensus and uniform counselling is needed. Including the opportunistic salpingectomy in gynecological guidelines and a decision aid for counselling could serve as tools to facilitate implementation.
BACKGROUND: To prevent ovarian cancer, several international societies have issued guidelines which recommend to discuss opportunistic salpingectomy with women undergoing pelvic surgery after completion of childbearing. The opportunistic salpingectomy refers to the additional removal of Fallopian tubes during pelvic surgery for another indication to reduce the risk of developing ovarian cancer. These recommendations emphasize the importance of counselling on benefits and risks of opportunistic salpingectomy but offer no guidance on their implementation in daily practice. The lack of a tailored implementation strategy has resulted in a wide variation in current practice. To reduce this practice variation, we identified influencing factors on implementing opportunistic salpingectomy from patients' and professionals' perspectives. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-method study between 2019 and 2020 throughout the Netherlands. In a qualitative phase, we conducted interviews with gynecologic patients (N = 11) and their professionals (N = 20) to explore barriers and facilitators, using an interview guide. In the quantitative phase, we quantified these barriers and facilitators among patients who underwent a hysterectomy or sterilization and were counselled on the opportunistic salpingectomy (N = 77), and members of the Dutch Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology (N = 204), using questionnaires. For both phases, barriers and facilitators were classified into the following domains: innovation, patient, healthcare professional, social setting, organization, and economic and political context. RESULTS: For patients, main barriers were lack of knowledge about: the existence of the opportunistic salpingectomy (45%), size of the surgery (44%) and its associated possible disadvantages (37%). In addition, patients attributed their reluctance to concerns about the removal of healthy organs (46%). For professionals, main barriers were: patients' lack of knowledge of the size of surgery (85%) and its associated possible disadvantages (77%), the gap in evidence on long term risks and benefits (43%), the lack of feasibility in certain patients and during vaginal surgery (66%). Both patients (41%) and professionals (67%) identified the need for counselling material as facilitator. CONCLUSION: To reduce the variety in care regarding opportunistic salpingectomy, consensus and uniform counselling is needed. Including the opportunistic salpingectomy in gynecological guidelines and a decision aid for counselling could serve as tools to facilitate implementation.
Authors: J M Piek; P J van Diest; R P Zweemer; J W Jansen; R J Poort-Keesom; F H Menko; J J Gille; A P Jongsma; G Pals; P Kenemans; R H Verheijen Journal: J Pathol Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 7.996
Authors: Lindsey A Torre; Britton Trabert; Carol E DeSantis; Kimberly D Miller; Goli Samimi; Carolyn D Runowicz; Mia M Gaudet; Ahmedin Jemal; Rebecca L Siegel Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2018-05-29 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Clare J Reade; Ruaidhrí M McVey; Alicia A Tone; Sarah J Finlayson; Jessica N McAlpine; Michael Fung-Kee-Fung; Sarah E Ferguson Journal: J Obstet Gynaecol Can Date: 2014-02
Authors: Miranda P Steenbeek; Laura A M van Lieshout; Johanna W M Aarts; Jurgen M J Piek; Sjors F P J Coppus; Leon F A G Massuger; Rosella P M G Hermens; Joanne A de Hullu Journal: J Gynecol Oncol Date: 2018-04-30 Impact factor: 4.401
Authors: Gillian E Hanley; Jin Niu; Jihee Han; Sharon Fung; Heather Bryant; Janice S Kwon; David G Huntsman; Sarah J Finlayson; Jessica N McAlpine; Dianne Miller; Craig C Earle Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2022-05-31