A systematic review of women's satisfaction and regret following risk-reducing mastectomy

21Citations
Citations of this article
71Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

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.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Braude, L., Kirsten, L., Gilchrist, J., & Juraskova, I. (2017, December 1). A systematic review of women’s satisfaction and regret following risk-reducing mastectomy. Patient Education and Counseling. Elsevier Ireland Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2017.06.032

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free