Women and Partners' Information Need, Emotional Adjustment, and Breast Reconstruction Decision-Making Before Mastectomy

"Are you ready?" A longitudinal interpretative phenomenological analysis of couples' experiences with breast reconstruction decision-making

PURPOSE

In this study, we aimed to explore women's and their male partners' experiences with breast reconstruction (BR) decision and to study the evolution of their experiences since undergoing mastectomy to one year after.

METHODS

Unstructured individual interviews with four couples facing mastectomy for breast cancer and BR decision-making were conducted following mastectomy (T1) and one year after mastectomy (T2). Longitudinal interpretative phenomenological analysis (LIPA) was conducted on the data.

RESULTS

A total of 16 interviews were conducted, revealing seven group experiential themes: six applicable across time and one related to a specific timepoint. The results highlight two critical aspects: the ambivalence surrounding BR and the perceived importance of moving forward. Women and their partners expressed mixed feelings about BR, weighing the potential for improved quality of life and body image against fears of surgery and medical complications. The decision to undergo BR evolved over time, influenced by experiences related to body acceptance, aesthetic considerations, practical concerns, and societal norms for femininity. Partners played a significant role in the decision-making process, offering emotional support and influencing the decision both directly and indirectly. Moreover, the interpretative accounts underline how couples may see BR as a strategy for repairing both physical and psychological damage.

CONCLUSION

Our findings emphasize the importance of understanding BR not only as a medical procedure but also as a deeply psychosocial process shaped by individual and relational factors. Furthermore, we provide reflections on the use of LIPA since it is a rarely used method.

Effects of decision aids on breast reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To systematically evaluate the effects of decision aids for women facing breast reconstruction decision on decision conflict, decision regret, knowledge, satisfaction, anxiety and depression.

BACKGROUND

Breast reconstruction decision is not good or bad and should be guided by clinical evidence and patient preferences. Decision aids can increase the patient's decision-making enthusiasm and ability, improve the quality of decision and promote shared decision-making between patients and medical staff.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Eight databases were conducted from the establishment of the database until October 2021. The PRISMA checklist was selected for analysis in this paper. The meta-analysis was conducted in Review Manager 5.3. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The result is decision conflict, decision regret, knowledge and other secondary outcomes. Sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis were also conducted.

RESULTS

A total of twelve randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Meta-analysis revealed that decision aids could significantly reduce decision conflict and decision regret, improve knowledge, satisfaction and depression and had no influence on anxiety.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the systematic review and meta-analysis reviewed the positive effect of decision aids on the decision-making of women facing postmastectomy breast reconstruction. In the future, more well-designed RCTs are needed to confirm the effects of decision aids on the decision-making of breast reconstruction and nurses should be encouraged to take part in the development of decision aids in accordance with strict standards and apply them to breast cancer patients considering postmastectomy breast reconstruction.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Our study provides evidence for the effectiveness of decision aids on breast reconstruction and points to the important role of healthcare providers in the use of decision aids and in facilitating shared decision-making.

Shared Decision-Making in Breast Reconstruction for Breast Cancer Patients: A Scoping Review

For most breast cancer (BC) patients who have undergone a mastectomy, the decision whether to proceed with breast reconstruction (BR) is complicated and requires deliberation. Shared decision-making (SDM) helps to address those needs and promote informed value-based decisions. However, little is known about the SDM status for BR in BC patients. This scoping review describes: 1) basic characteristics of studies on BR SDM in BC patients; 2) factors influencing BR SDM in BC patients; 3) experience and perception of BR SDM in BC patients; and 4) outcome measures reported. This review was performed in accordance with the Arksey and O'Malley methodology. A total of 5 English and 4 Chinese databases were searched, as well as different sources from grey literature. The data extraction form was developed by referring to the objectives and the Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF). Data was analyzed using thematic analysis, framework analysis and descriptive statistics, with findings presented in the tables and diagrams. A total of 1481 records were retrieved and 42 of these included after screening. In 21 (21/42, 50%) of the studies, patient decision aids (PDAs) were utilized, and in 17 (17/42, 40.48%) of the studies, the factors influencing the implementation of SDM were explored. Of these 17 studies, the factors influencing the implementation of SDM were categorized into the following: the patient level (17/17, 100%), the healthcare level (2/17, 11.76%) and the organizational and system level (7/17, 41.18%). A total of 8 (19.05%) of the 42 studies focused on patients' experiences and perceptions of SDM, and all studies used qualitative research methods. Of these 8 studies, a total of 7 (7/8, 87.50%) focused on patients' experiences of SDM participation, and 4 (4/8, 50.00%) focused on patients' perceptions of SDM. A total of 24 studies (24/42, 57.14%) involved quantitative outcome measures, where 49 items were divided into three classifications according to the outcomes of ODSF: the quality of the decision (17/24, 70.83%), the quality of the decision-making process (20/24, 83.33%), and impact (13/24, 54.17%). Although researchers have paid less attention to other research points in the field of SDM, compared to the design and application of SDM interventional tools, the research team still presents some equally noteworthy points through scoping review. For instance, the various factors influencing BC patients' participation in SDM for BR (especially at the healthcare provider level and at the organizational system level), patients' experiences and perceptions. Systematic reviews (SRs) should be conducted to quantify the impact of these different factors on BR SDM. Implementation of scientific theories and methods can inform the exploration and integration of these factors.