IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v39y2019i1p5-20.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Feasibility and Efficacy of Decision Aids to Improve Decision Making for Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Nicholas L. Berlin

    (Section of Plastic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI)

  • Vickram J. Tandon

    (Section of Plastic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI)

  • Sarah T. Hawley

    (Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
    Center for Health Communications and Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI)

  • Jennifer B. Hamill

    (Section of Plastic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI)

  • Mark P. MacEachern

    (Taubman Health Sciences Library, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI)

  • Clara N. Lee

    (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, College of Medicine, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
    Division of Health Services Management and Policy, College of Public Health, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH)

  • Edwin G. Wilkins

    (Section of Plastic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI)

Abstract

Background. The decision-making process for women considering breast reconstruction following mastectomy is complex. Research suggests that fewer than half of women undergoing mastectomy have adequate knowledge and make treatment decisions that are concordant with their underlying values. This systematic review assesses the feasibility and efficacy of preoperative decision aids (DAs) to improve the patient decision-making process for breast reconstruction. Methods. A systematic review was performed using PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Databases published prior to January 4, 2018. Studies that assessed the impact of a DA on patient decision making for breast reconstruction were identified. The effect of preoperative DAs on decisional conflict in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was measured with inverse variance-weighted mean differences (mean difference [MD] ± 95% confidence interval [CI]). Results. Among 1299 unique articles identified, 1197 were excluded after reviewing titles and abstracts against selection criteria. Among the 17 studies included in this review, 11 assessed the efficacy of DAs for breast reconstruction and 6 additional studies described the development and usability of these DAs. Studies suggest that DAs reduce patient-reported decisional conflict (MD, –4.55 [95% CI, –8.65 to –0.45], P = 0.03 in the fixed-effects model and MD, –4.70 [95% CI, –10.75 to 1.34], P = 0.13 in the random-effects model). Preoperative DAs also improved patient satisfaction with information and perceived involvement in the decision-making process. Conclusions. The existing literature suggests that DAs reduce decisional conflict, improve self-reported satisfaction with information, and improve perceived involvement in the decision-making process for women considering breast reconstruction.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicholas L. Berlin & Vickram J. Tandon & Sarah T. Hawley & Jennifer B. Hamill & Mark P. MacEachern & Clara N. Lee & Edwin G. Wilkins, 2019. "Feasibility and Efficacy of Decision Aids to Improve Decision Making for Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(1), pages 5-20, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:39:y:2019:i:1:p:5-20
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X18803879
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X18803879
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X18803879?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:39:y:2019:i:1:p:5-20. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.