Shared decision-making: Applying a person-centered approach to tailored breast reconstruction information provides high satisfaction across a variety of breast reconstruction options

Journal of Surgical Oncology

Volumn 110, Issue 7, 2014, Pages 796-800

  Temple Oberle, Claire ^a   Ayeni, Omodole ^a   Webb, Carmen ^a   Bettger Hahn, Margo ^a   Ayeni, Olubukunola ^a   Mychailyshyn, Nadia ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

Author keywords

breast; cancer; person centered care; satisfaction; types of reconstruction

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

ADULT; ALLOGRAFT; ARTICLE; AUTOTRANSPLANTATION; BODY IMAGE; BODY MASS; BREAST CANCER; BREAST IMPLANT; BREAST RECONSTRUCTION; BRECON 31 QUESTIONNAIRE; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; EXPECTATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTIMACY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT DECISION MAKING; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; TIME TO TREATMENT; BREAST NEOPLASMS; DECISION MAKING; FOLLOW UP; PROCEDURES; PROGNOSIS; PSYCHOLOGY; SATISFACTION; SELF CONCEPT;

BREAST IMPLANTS; BREAST NEOPLASMS; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MAMMAPLASTY; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PERSONAL SATISFACTION; PROGNOSIS; QUESTIONNAIRES; SELF CONCEPT;

EID: 84922330454     PISSN: 00224790     EISSN: 10969098     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jso.23721     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Temple CL, Cook EF, Ross DC, et al.,: Development of a breast reconstruction satisfaction questionnaire (BRECON): Dimensionality and clinical importance of breast symptoms, donor site issues, patient expectations, and relationships. J Surg Oncol 2010; 101: 209-216.
2. Temple-Oberle CF, Cook EF, Bettger-Hahn M, et al.,: Development of a breast reconstruction satisfaction questionnaire (BRECON-31): Principal components analysis and clinimetric properties. J Surg Oncol 2012; 106: 799-806.
3. Temple-Oberle CF, Ayeni O, Cook EF, et al.,: Development of a breast reconstruction satisfaction questionnaire (BRECON-31): An affirmative analysis. J Surg Oncol 2013; 107: 451-455.
4. Ho AL, Klassen AF, Cano S, et al.,: Optimizing patient-centered care in breast reconstruction: The importance of preoperative information and patient-physician communication. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132: 212e-220e.
5. Zhong T, Hu J, Bagher S, et al.,: Decision regret following breast reconstruction: The role of self-efficacy and satisfaction with information in the preoperative period. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132: 724e-734e.
6. Sheehan J, Sherman KA, Lam T, et al.,: Association of information satisfaction, psychological distress and monitoring coping style with post-decision regret following breast reconstruction. Psycho-Oncology 2007; 16: 342-351.
7. Ditsch N, Bauerfeind I, Vodermaier A, et al.,: A retrospective investigation of women's experience with breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2013; 287: 555-561.
8. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. http://www.ihi.org/IHI/Topics/PatientCenteredCare/PatientCenteredCareGeneral/accessed February 2014.
9. Coulter A, Ellins J:, Effectiveness of strategies for informing, educating and involving patients. Br Med J 2007; 335: 24-27.
10. Abma TA, Nierse NJ, Widdershoven GAM:, Patients as partners in responsive research: Methodological notions for collaborations in mixed research teams. Qual Health Res 2009; 19: 401.
11. www.oxforddictionaries.com; accessed Mar 2014.
12. Tsianakas V, Robert G, Maben J, et al.,: Implementing patient-centred care: Using experience-based co-design to improve patient experience in breast and lung cancer services. Support Care Cancer 2012; 20: 2639-247.
13. Alderman AK, Hawley ST, Waljee J, et al.,: Understanding the impact of breast reconstruction on the surgical decision-making process for breast cancer. Cancer 2008; 112: 489-494.
14. Lam A, Secord S, Butler K, et al.,: A breast reconstruction needs assessment: How does self-efficacy affect information access and preferences ? Can J Past Surg 2012; 20: 37-42.
15. Mac Bride MB, Lonzetta N, Dilaveri CA, et al.,: Factors associated with surgical decision making in women with early-stage breast cancer: Literature review. J Womens Health 2013; 22: 236-242.
16. Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, et al.,: Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: The BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 124: 345-353.
17. Temple CLF, Tse R, Bettger-Hahn M, et al.,: Sensibility following innervated free TRAM flap for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 117: 2119-2127.
18. Temple CL, Ross DC, Kim S, et al.,: Sensibility following innervated free TRAM flap for breast reconstruction: Part II. Innervation improves patient-rated quality of life. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 124: 1419-1425.
19. Winters ZE, Haviland J, Balta V, et al.,: Integration of patient-reported outcome measures with key clinical outcomes after immediate latissimus dorsi breaset reconstruction and adjuvant treatment. Br J Surg 2013; 100: 240-251.
20. McCarthy CM, Klassen AF, Cano SJ, et al.,: Patient satisfaction with postmastectomy breast reconstruction: A comparison of saline and silicone implants. Cancer 2010; 116: 5584-5591.
21. Macadam SA, Ho AL, Lennox PA, et al.,: Patient-reported satisfaction and health-related quality of life following breast reconstruction: A comparison of shaped cohesive gel and round cohesive gel implant recipients. Plast Recosntr Surg 2013; 131: 431-441.
22. Spector DJ, Mayer DK, Knafl K, et al.,: Women's recovery experiences after breast cancer reconstruction surgery. J Psychosoc Oncol 2011; 29: 664-676.
23. Spector D, Mayer D, Knafl K, et al.,: Not what I expected: Informational needs of women undergoing breast surgery. Plast Surg Nurs 2010; 30: 70-74.
24. Myles PS, Weitkamp B, Jones K, et al.,: Validity and reliability of a postoperative quality of recovery score: The QoR-40. Br J Anaesth 2000; 84: 11-15.
25. Davidge MK, Brown M, Morgan P, et al.,: Processes of care in autogenous breast reconstruction with pedicled TRAM flaps: Expediting postoperative discharge in an ambulatory setting. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132: 339e-344e.
26. Fitzpatrick AM, Gao LL, Smith BL, et al.,: Cost and outcome analysis of breast reconstruction paradigm shift. Can J Plast Surg 2013; 21: 113.
27. Zhong T, McCarthy C, Min S, et al.,: Patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life after autologous tissue breast reconstruction: A prospective analysis of early postoperative outcomes. Cancer 2012; 118: 1701-1709.
28. Jones AP, Erdmann M:, Projection and patient satisfaction using the "Hamburger" nipple reconstruction technique. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2012; 65: 207-212.
29. Coopey SB, Tang R, Lei L, et al.,: Increasing eligibility for nipple-sparing mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 2013; 20: 3218-3222.
30. Burget GC, Menick FJ:, Nasal support and lining: The marriage of beauty and blood supply. Plast Reconstr Surg 1989; 84: 189-202.
31. Alderman AK, Kuhn LE, Lowery JC, et al.,: Does patient satisfaction with breast reconstruction change over time? Two-year results of the Michigan Breast Reconstruction Outcomes Study. J Am Coll Surg 2006; 204: 7-12.
32. Atisha D, Alderman AK, Lowery JC, et al.,: Prospective analysis of long-term psychosocial outcomes in breast reconstruction: Two-year postoperative results from the Michigan Breast Reconstruction Outcomes Study. Ann Surg 2008; 247: 1019-1028.
33. Kalaaji A, Bruheim M:, Quality of life after breast reconstruction: Comparison of three methods. Scand J Plas Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 2012; 44: 140-145.
34. Cha R, Barnes E, Locke M:, Patient-reported outcomes following breast reconstruction surgery in a public hospital: Use of the Breast-Q questionnaire. N Z Med J 2013; 125: 43-55.
35. Alberta Health Services. Clinical Practice Guideline BR-016. Available at: http://www.albertahealthservices.ca/hp/if-hp-cancer-guide-br016-breast-reconstruction.pdf. Accessed [Jan, 01, 2014].
36. Thoma A, Veltri K, Khutaila D, et al.,: Comparison of the deep inferior epigastrci perforator flap and free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap in postmastectomy reconstruction: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 113: 1650-1661.
37. Thoma A, Jansen L, Sprague S, et al.,: A comparison of the superficial inferior epigastrci flap and deep inferior epigastric perforator flap in poastmastectomy reconstruction: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Can J Plast Surg 2008; 16: 77-84.
38. Clough KB, O'Donoghue JM, Fitoussi AD, et al.,: Prospective evaluation of late cosmetic results following breast reconstruction: I. Implant reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001; 107: 1702-1709.
39. Clough KB, O'Donoghue JM, Fitoussi AD, et al.,: Prospective evaluation of late cosmetic results flowing breast reconstruction: II. Tram flap reconstruction. Plast Recostr Surg 2001; 107: 1710-1716.
40. Blondeel N, Vanderstraeten GG, Monstrey SJ, et al.,: The donor site morbidity of fee DIEP flaps and free TRAM flaps for breast reconstruction. Br J Plast Surg 1997; 50: 322-330.
41. Williams B:, Patient satisfaction: A valid concept ? Soc Sci Med 1994; 38: 509-516.
42. Thoma A, Sprague S, Temple C, et al.,: The role of the randomized controlled trial in plastic surgery. Clin Plast Surg 2008; 35: 275-284.
43. Zhong T, Temple-Oberle C, Hofer S, et al.,: The Multi Centre Canadian Acellular Dermal Matrix Trial (MCCAT): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial in implant-based breast reconstruction. Trials 2013; 14: 356.