A systematic review of women's satisfaction and regret following risk-reducing mastectomy. Issue 12 (December 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Braude, Lucy; Kirsten, Laura; Gilchrist, Jemma; Juraskova, Ilona
• Is Part Of: Patient education and counseling. Volume 100:Issue 12(2017)
• Page Start: 2182
• Page End: 2189
• Publication Date: 2017-12
• Subjects: Risk-reducing mastectomy -- Breast cancer risk -- Cancer -- Patient satisfaction -- Regret -- Patient-reported factors -- Systematic review; Patient education -- Periodicals; Health counseling -- Periodicals; Health education -- Periodicals; Counseling -- Periodicals; Patient Education -- Periodicals; Éducation des patients -- Périodiques; Counseling -- Périodiques; Éducation sanitaire -- Périodiques; 615.5071
• DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2017.06.032
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0738-3991

Abstract

Highlights: Most women are satisfied with risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM), however some report regret and dissatisfaction. Dissatisfaction and regret often relate to complications and emotional distress. It is unclear if age, surgery type and cancer risk influence RRM satisfaction. More research is needed on regret in the RRM context. Psychological support through RRM process may enhance satisfaction and reduce regret. Abstract: Objective: A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies, to describe patient satisfaction and regret associated with risk-reducing mastectomies (RRM), and the patient-reported factors associated with these among women at high risk of developing breast cancer. Methods: Studies were identified using Medline, CINAHL, Embase and PsycInfo databases (1995–2016). Data were extracted and crosschecked for accuracy. Article quality was assessed using standardised criteria. Results: Of the 1657 unique articles identified, 30 studies met the inclusion criteria (n = 23 quantitative studies, n = 3 qualitative studies, n = 4 mixed-method studies). Studies included were cross-sectional (n = 23) or retrospective (n = 7). General satisfaction with RRM, decision satisfaction and aesthetic satisfaction were generally high, although some women expressed regret around their decision and dissatisfaction with their appearance. Factors associated with both patient satisfaction and regret included: post-operative complications, body image changes, psychological distress and perceived inadequacy of information. Conclusion: While satisfaction with RRM was generally high, some women had regrets and expressed dissatisfaction. Future research is needed to further explore RRM, and to investigate current satisfaction trends given the ongoing improvements to surgical and clinical practice. Practice implications: Offering pre-operative preparation, decisional support and continuous psychological input may help to facilitate satisfaction with this complex procedure.