Empowering women considering reconstructive breast surgery – a Danish cohort study on decisional conflict and regret
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/jphs.v60.44584Keywords:
Breast cancer, breast reconstruction, Breast, Oncoplastic breast surgery, shared decision making, decision conflict, decisional regret, patient decision aidAbstract
Backround: Breast reconstructive surgery following mastectomy or lumpectomy presents a significant decisional challenge for patients. The emotional weight of a cancer diagnosis and the complexity of surgical options necessitate a comprehensive support system to guide patients through their choices. This study investigates the implementation of a structured information process using patient decision aids (PtDAs) to enhance the decision-making process, increase patient engagement, and reduce decisional conflict and regret.
Methods: From 2018 to 2021, Vejle Hospital, Denmark, invited 104 patients at risk or diagnosed with breast cancer to participate in a study of shared decision making in reconstructive surgery. Participants were offered two independent consultations with a plastic surgeon, and in the intervention group, a PtDA, which included a paper folder and short films on breast surgery. Outcomes were measured with validated questionnaires.
Results: The study found no significant difference in decisional conflict or regret between patients who used shared decision making and the PtDA and those who did not. However, there was a significant reduction in decisional conflict within both groups between the first and second consultations.
Conclusion: The results indicate that our consultations, with the structured information process, successfully reflected patient engagement and supported patients in making informed decisions about breast reconstruction, leading to low levels of decision conflict and regret in both groups. This approach could serve as a model for other institutions aiming to improve patient-centered care.
Downloads
References
Overgaard J, Kettner LO et al. Long-term evaluation of postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Acta Oncol. 2011;50(7):1053–1061. https://doi.org/10.3109/0284186X.2011.584554 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/0284186X.2011.584554
Kouwenberg CAE, et al. Long-term health-related quality of life after four common surgical treatment options for breast cancer and the effect of complications: a retrospective patient-reported survey among 1871 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;146(1):1–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000006887
Gümüscü R, et al. National long-term patient-reported outcomes following mastectomy with or without breast reconstruction: the Swedish Breast Reconstruction Outcome Study Part 2 (SweBRO 2). BJS Open. 2024;8(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zrae003
Rose M, et al. Patient-reported outcome after oncoplastic breast surgery compared with conventional breast-conserving surgery in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2020;180(1):247–256. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-020-05544-2
Woo SH, et al. Outcomes of smooth round implant-based immediate breast reconstruction: long-term follow-up results. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2023;57(1–6):370–375. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2000656X.2022.2118757
Brehaut JC, et al. Validation of a decision regret scale. Med Decis Making. 2003;23(4):281–292. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X03256005
O’Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Making. 1995;15(1):25–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X9501500105
Elwyn G, et al. A three-talk model for shared decision making: multistage consultation process. BMJ. 2017;359:j4891. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4891
Stacey D, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;1:CD001431. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub4
Metcalfe K, et al. Development and testing of a decision aid for women considering delayed breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018;71(3):318–326. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2017.08.027
Video som patient beslutningsstoette [Internet]. [cited 2018 Feb]. Available from: https://patientsikkerhed.dk/content/uploads/2015/12/video_patientbeslutningsst_tte_rapport_final.pdf
Joseph-Williams N, et al. Toward minimum standards for certifying patient decision aids: a modified Delphi consensus process. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(6):699–710. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X13501721
Coulter A, et al. A systematic development process for patient decision aids. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(Suppl 2):S2. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S2
Olling K, et al. Development of a patient decision aid template for use in different clinical settings. Eur J Person Center Healthc. 2019;7(1).
Steffensen KD, et al. Lessons in integrating shared decision- making into cancer care. J Oncol Pract. 2018;14(4):229–235. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.18.00019 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.18.00019
Barr PJ, et al. The psychometric properties of CollaboRATE: a fast and frugal patient-reported measure of the shared decision-making process. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(1):e2. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3085 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3085
CollaboRATE Danish Version, 2016 [Internet]. [cited 2017 Feb]. Available from: https://www.glynelwyn.com/scoring-collaborate.html
Becerra Pérez MM, et al. Extent and predictors of decision regret about health care decisions: a systematic review. Med Decis Making. 2016;36(6):777–790. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X16636113
The PtDA Research Group. The Ottowa Hospital [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2017 Feb]. Available from: https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/docs/develop/Tools/DCS_Danish.pdf
Zhong T, 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(5): 724e–734e. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a3bf5d
Harris PA, et al. Research electronic data capture (REDCap) – a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–381. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010
Fang SY, Lin PJ, Kuo YL. Long-term effectiveness of a decision support app (pink journey) for women considering breast reconstruction surgery: pilot randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021;9(12):e31092. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/31092
Mardinger C, et al. Breast reconstruction decision aids decrease decisional conflict and improve decisional satisfaction: a randomized controlled trial. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2023;151(2): 278–288. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000009830 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000009830
Chen L, et al. Effect of shared decision-making in patients with breast cancer undergoing breast reconstruction surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs. 2024;11(11):100596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apjon.2024.100596 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apjon.2024.100596
Paraskeva N, et al. A multi-centred sequential trial comparing PEGASUS, an intervention to promote shared decision making about breast reconstruction with usual care. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2022;75(4):1342–1351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2021.11.033 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2021.11.033
Ter Stege JA, et al. Decisional conflict in breast cancer patients considering immediate breast reconstruction. Breast. 2021;55:91–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2020.12.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2020.12.001
Søndergaard SR, et al. Shared decision making with breast cancer patients – Does it work? Results of the cluster-randomized, multicenter DBCG RT SDM trial. Radiother Oncol. 2024;193:110115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110115
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Bekka Christensen, Karina Steffensen, Anna Mejldal, Vibeke Koudahl
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Acta Chirurgica Scandinavica Society owns the copyright for all material published until Volume 57 (2023) unless otherwise specified. As from 2024 all published articles, unless otherwise specified, are published under CC-BY licences, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, with the condition of proper attribution to the original work.
