Exploring information provision in reconstructive breast surgery: A qualitative study

Breast

Volumn 24, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 732-738

  Potter, Shelley ^a,b   Mills, Nicola ^a   Cawthorn, Simon ^c   Wilson, Sherif ^d   Blazeby, Jane ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^b BRISTOL ROYAL INFIRMARY   (United Kingdom)

^c SOUTHMEAD HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^d NORTH BRISTOL NHS TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Breast reconstruction; Decision making; Information; Oncology; Qualitative study

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST RECONSTRUCTION; BREAST TISSUE EXPANDER; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEEP INFERIOR EPIGASTRIC PERFORATOR FLAP; FEMALE; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; LATISSIMUS DORSI FLAP; MALE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL INFORMATION; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PLASTIC SURGEON; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOLOGIST; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; SURGEON; TREATMENT OUTCOME; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; DECISION MAKING; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT EDUCATION; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGY; STANDARDS;

ADULT; AGED; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; MALE; MAMMAPLASTY; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH;

EID: 84960845305     PISSN: 09609776     EISSN: 15323080     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2015.09.003     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Cordeiro P.G. Breast reconstruction after surgery for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2008, 359(15):1590-1601.
2. Potter S., Brigic A., Whiting P., Cawthorn S.J., Avery K., Donovan J., et al. Reporting clinical outcomes of breast reconstruction. A systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011, 103(1):31-46.
3. Potter S., Harcourt D., Cawthorn S.J., Warr R., Mills N., Havercroft D., et al. Assessment of cosmesis after breast reconstruction surgery: a systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol 2011, 18(3):813-823.
4. Lee C., Sunu C., Pignone M. Patient reported outcomes of breast reconstruction after mastectomy: a systematic review. J Am Coll Surg 2009, 209(1):123-133.
5. National Institute of Clinical E. Breast cancer (early & locally advanced): diagnosis and treatment, 2009.
6. Rainsbury D., Willett A. Oncoplastic breast reconstruction: guidelines for best practice 2012, ABS and BAPRAS. R. Rainsbury, A. Willett (Eds.).
7. Jeevan R., Cromwell D., Browne J., van der Meulen J., Pereira J., Caddy C., et al. First annual report of the national mastectomy and breast reconstruction audit 2008.
8. Jeevan R., Cromwell D., Browne J., van der Meulen J., Pereira J., Caddy C., et al. The National Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Audit. A national audit of provision and outcomes of mastectomy and breast reconstruction surgery for women in England 2009, Second Annual Report.
9. Dougall A., Russell A., Rubin G., Ling J. Rethinking patient satisfaction: patient experiences of an open access flexible sigmoidoscopy service. Soc Sci Med 2000, 50(1):53-62.
10. Pollock K., Moghaddam N., Cox K., Wilson E., Howard P. Exploring patients' experience of receiving information about cancer: a comparison of interview and questionnaire methods of data collection. Health 2011, 15(2):153-172.
11. Rogers A., Karlsen S., Addington-Hall J. 'All the services were excellent. It is when the human element comes in that things go wrong' dissatisfaction with hospital care in the last year of life. J Adv Nurs 2000, 31(4):768-774.
12. Rowell R.M., Polipnick J. A pilot mixed methods study of patient satisfaction with chiropractic care for back pain. J Manip Physiol Ther 2008, 31(8):602-610.
13. Crawford M.J., Kessel A.S. Not listening to patients - the use and misuse of patient satisfaction studies. Int J Soc Psychiatry 1999, 45(1):1-6.
14. Williams B., Coyle J., Healy D. The meaning of patient satisfaction: an explanation of high reported levels. Soc Sci Med 1998, 47(9):1351-1359.
15. Pope C., Mays N. Qualitative research: reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research. BMJ 1995, 311(6996):42-45.
16. Kuper A., Reeves S., Levinson W. An introduction to reading and appraising qualitative research. BMJ 2008, 337(aug07_3):a288.
17. Neill K.M., Armstrong N., Burnett C.B. Choosing reconstruction after mastectomy: a qualitative analysis. Oncol Nurs Forum 1998, 4:743-750.
18. Wolf L. The information needs of women who have undergone breast reconstruction. Part I: decision making and sources of information. Eur J Nurs Oncol 2004, 8:211-223.
19. Wolf L. The information needs of women who have undergone breast reconstruction. Part II: information giving and content of information. Eur J Oncol Nurs 2004, 8:315-324.
20. Nissen M.J., Swenson K.K., Kind E.A. Quality of life after postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Oncol Nurs Forum 2002, 29(3):547-553.
21. Jeevan R., Cromwell D., Browne J., van der Meulen J., Pereira J., Caddy C., et al. National mastectomy and breast reconstruction audit 2010 2010, Third Annual Report.
22. Potter S., Mills N., Cawthorn S., Donovan J., Blazeby J. Time to be BRAVE: is educating surgeons the key to unlocking the potential of randomised clinical trials in surgery? A qualitative study. Trials 2014, 15(1):80.
23. Potter S., Mills N., Cawthorn S., Wilson S., Blazeby J. Exploring inequalities in access to care and the provision of choice to women seeking breast reconstruction surgery: a qualitative study. Br J Cancer 2013 Sep 3, 109(5):1181-1191. [Epub 2013 Aug 8]. 10.1038/bjc.2013.461.
24. Potter S., Cawthorn S., Mills N., Blazeby J. Investigation of the feasibility of clinical trials in breast reconstruction. Lancet 2013, 381:S88.
25. Glaser B., Strauss A.L. The discovery of grounded theory 1967, Adeline, Chicago.
26. Ho A.L., Klassen A.F., Cano S., Scott A.M., Pusic A.L. Optimizing patient-centered care in breast reconstruction: the importance of preoperative information and patient-physician communication. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013, 132(2):212e-220e. 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31829586fa.
27. Temple-Oberle C., Ayeni O., Webb C., Bettger-Hahn M., Ayeni O., Mychailyshyn N. Shared decision-making: applying a person-centered approach to tailored breast reconstruction information provides high satisfaction across a variety of breast reconstruction options. J Surg Oncol 2014, 110:796-800.
28. Jeevan R., Cromwell D.A., Browne J.P., Caddy C.M., Pereira J., Sheppard C., et al. Findings of a national comparative audit of mastectomy and breast reconstruction surgery in England. J Plast Reconstr Aestheth Surg 2014, 67(10):1333-1344.
29. Barbour R.S. Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog?. BMJ 2001, 322(7294):1115-1117.
30. Mays N., Pope C. Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ 2000, 320:50-52.
31. Tong A., Sainsbury P., Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007, 19(6):349-357.
32. Mays N., Pope C. Qualitative research: rigour and qualitative research. BMJ 1995, 311(6997):109-112.
33. Kuper A., Lingard L., Levinson W. Critically appraising qualitative research. BMJ 2008, 337(aug07_3):a1035.
34. Long A.F., Godfrey M. An evaluation tool to assess the quality of qualitative research studies. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2004, 7(2):181-196.
35. Meyrick J. What is good qualitative research?. J Health Psychol 2006, 11(5):799-808.
36. Richards H., Emslie C. The 'doctor' or the 'girl from the university'? Considering the influence of professional roles on qualitative interviewing. Fam Pract 2000, 17(1):71-75.
37. Clarke T., Yii M. How to work in plastic surgery. New Dr 2010, 3(2):10-11.
38. Teddlie C., Yu F. Mixed methods sampling. A typology with examples. J Mix Methods Res 2007, 1(1):77-100.
39. Tattersall M.H.N., Butow P.N. Consultation audio tapes: an underused cancer patient information aid and clinical research tool. Lancet Oncol 2002, 3(7):431-437.
40. Levinson W., Chaumeton N. Communication between surgeons and patients in routine office visits. Surgery 1999, 125(2):127-134.
41. Blencowe N., Blazeby J. Core outcomes for surgical procedures. BMJ Blog 2011, [accessed 21st June 2014]. http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2011/06/01/natalie-blencowe-and-jane-blazeby-core-outcomes-for-surgical-procedures/.
42. Beauchamp T., Childress J. Principles of biomedical ethics 2001, Oxford University Press. 5th ed.
43. Heller L., Parker P.A., Youssef A., Miller M.J. Interactive decision aid in breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008, 122(3):717-724.
44. Lee B., Chen C., Yueh J., Nguyen M.D., Lin S., Tobias A. Computer-based learning module increases shared decision making in breast reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol 2010, 17(3):738-743.
45. O'Connor A.M., Stacey D., Barry M.J., Col N.F., Eden K.B., Entwistle V., et al. Do patient decision aids meet effectiveness criteria of the international patient decision aid standards collaboration? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Decis Mak 2007, 27(5):554-574.
46. Clarke M. Standardising outcomes for clinical trials and systematic reviews. Trials 2007, 8(1):39.
47. COMET Initiative C Core outcome measures in effectiveness trials 2011, http://www.liv.ac.uk/nwhtmr/comet/comet.htm.
48. Ward J., Potter S., Blazeby J. BRAVO for breast reconstruction. BMJ On-line 2012, [accessed 21st June 2014]. http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2012/02/01/comet-team-bravo-for-breast-reconstruction/.
49. Ward J., Potter S., Blazeby J. Outcome reporting for reconstructive breast surgery: the need for consensus, consistency and core outcome sets. Eur J Surg Oncol 2012, 38(11):1020-1021.
50. Ward J., Potter S., Blazeby J. The BREAST-Q further validation in independent clinical samples. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012, 130(4):617e-618e.
51. Caldon L.J.M., Collins K.A., Reed M.W., Sivell S., Austoker J., Clements A.M., et al. Clinicians' concerns about decision support interventions for patients facing breast cancer surgery options: understanding the challenge of implementing shared decision-making. Health Expect 2011, 14(2):133-146.