OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
BMJ open
09 03, 2019;9 (9): e029048.

How patient acceptability affects access to breast reconstruction: a qualitative study.

Helene Retrouvey, Toni Zhong, Anna R Gagliardi, Nancy N Baxter, Fiona Webster
Author Information
  1. Helene Retrouvey: Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada helene.retrouvey@mail.utoronto.ca. ORCID
  2. Toni Zhong: Department of surgery, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
  3. Anna R Gagliardi: Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
  4. Nancy N Baxter: Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
  5. Fiona Webster: Faculty of Health Sciences, Arthur Labatt School of Nursing, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
PMID: 31481552 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029048

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: There has been limited research on the acceptability of breast reconstruction (BR) to breast cancer patients. We performed interviews to explore breast cancer patients' acceptability of BR.
DESIGN: Qualitative study.
SETTING: Recruitment from six Ontario hospitals across the province (Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton, London, Thunder Bay and Windsor) as well as key breast cancer organisations between November 2017 and June 2018.
PARTICIPANTS: Women of any age with a diagnosis of breast cancer planning to undergo or having undergone a mastectomy with or without BR.
INTERVENTION: Sixty-minute semi-structured interviews were analysed using qualitative descriptive methodology that draws on inductive thematic analysis.
OUTCOME: In the telephone interviews, participants discussed their experience with breast cancer and accessing BR, focusing on the acceptability of BR as a surgical option post-mastectomy.
RESULTS: Of the 28 participants, 11 had undergone BR at the time of the interview, 5 at the time of mastectomy and 6 at a later date. Four inter-related themes were identified that reflected women's evolving ideas about BR as they progressed through different stages of their disease and treatment. The themes we developed were: (1) cancer survival before BR, (2) the influence of physicians on BR acceptability, (3) patient's shift to BR acceptance and (4) women's need to justify BR. For many women, access to BR surgery became more salient over time, thus adding a temporal element to the existing access framework.
CONCLUSION: In our study, women's access to BR was negatively influenced by the poor acceptability of this surgical procedure. The acceptability of BR was a complex process taking place over time, from the moment of breast cancer diagnosis to BR consideration. BR access may be improved through enhancing patient acceptability of BR. We suggest adapting the current access to care frameworks by further developing the concept of acceptability.

Keywords

acceptability access breast cancer interviews qualitative research

References

  1. Prof Nurse. 1999 May;14(8):531-3 [PMID: 10532026]
  2. Cancer Nurs. 1999 Dec;22(6):421-7; quiz 428-9 [PMID: 10603689]
  3. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2000 Feb;26(1):17-9 [PMID: 10718173]
  4. N Engl J Med. 2000 Apr 6;342(14):1016-22 [PMID: 10749964]
  5. Res Nurs Health. 2000 Aug;23(4):334-40 [PMID: 10940958]
  6. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000 Oct;106(5):1014-25; discussion 1026-7 [PMID: 11039373]
  7. J Am Coll Surg. 2001 Jan;192(1):1-8 [PMID: 11192909]
  8. Women Health. 2000;31(2-3):57-79 [PMID: 11289686]
  9. ANZ J Surg. 2001 Apr;71(4):207-11 [PMID: 11355726]
  10. Lancet. 2001 Aug 11;358(9280):483-8 [PMID: 11513933]
  11. Can J Nurs Res. 2001 Sep;33(2):27-42 [PMID: 11928334]
  12. Contemp Nurse. 2002 Feb;12(1):58-63 [PMID: 12013519]
  13. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002 Jul;7(3):186-8 [PMID: 12171751]
  14. BMC Fam Pract. 2003 Jul 7;4:8 [PMID: 12846934]
  15. Br J Plast Surg. 2003 Sep;56(6):567-70 [PMID: 12946375]
  16. ANZ J Surg. 2003 Sep;73(9):701-6 [PMID: 12956785]
  17. Ann Surg Oncol. 2004 Aug;11(8):762-71 [PMID: 15249342]
  18. Cancer. 2004 Oct 1;101(7):1514-23 [PMID: 15378473]
  19. J Clin Oncol. 2004 Oct 1;22(19):4002-9 [PMID: 15459224]
  20. Cancer. 2005 Dec 1;104(11):2340-6 [PMID: 16216000]
  21. Am J Public Health. 2005 Dec;95(12):2225-30 [PMID: 16257945]
  22. Qual Health Res. 2006 Jul;16(6):802-20 [PMID: 16760537]
  23. Int J Nurs Stud. 2007 Aug;44(6):1064-70 [PMID: 16844128]
  24. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007 Feb;119(2):464-72 [PMID: 17230077]
  25. Health Serv Res. 2007 Aug;42(4):1758-72 [PMID: 17286625]
  26. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2007;60(5):509-18 [PMID: 17399660]
  27. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57 [PMID: 17872937]
  28. Qual Health Res. 2007 Dec;17(10):1316-28 [PMID: 18000071]
  29. Cancer. 2008 Feb 1;112(3):489-94 [PMID: 18157830]
  30. J Am Coll Surg. 2008 Apr;206(4):605-15 [PMID: 18387464]
  31. BMJ. 2008 Aug 07;337:a949 [PMID: 18687730]
  32. J Clin Oncol. 2008 Aug 20;26(24):3943-9 [PMID: 18711183]
  33. N Engl J Med. 2008 Oct 9;359(15):1590-601 [PMID: 18843123]
  34. Arch Surg. 2008 Nov;143(11):1076-81; discusion 1081 [PMID: 19015466]
  35. J Gen Intern Med. 2009 Jan;24(1):99-104 [PMID: 19023629]
  36. Can J Surg. 2008 Dec;51(6):447-52 [PMID: 19057733]
  37. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Nov 10;27(32):5325-30 [PMID: 19805680]
  38. Res Nurs Health. 2010 Feb;33(1):77-84 [PMID: 20014004]
  39. Am J Occup Ther. 1991 Mar;45(3):214-22 [PMID: 2031523]
  40. Health Expect. 2011 Mar;14 Suppl 1:6-19 [PMID: 20579123]
  41. Breast J. 2011 Jul-Aug;17(4):352-8 [PMID: 21615823]
  42. Cancer. 2012 Mar 15;118(6):1701-9 [PMID: 22025176]
  43. CMAJ. 2011 Dec 13;183(18):2109-16 [PMID: 22065359]
  44. J Am Coll Surg. 2012 Mar;214(3):270-6 [PMID: 22225646]
  45. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012 Nov 21;12:415 [PMID: 23170843]
  46. Body Image. 2013 Jun;10(3):344-51 [PMID: 23490552]
  47. Psychol Health. 2013;28(10):1099-120 [PMID: 23557084]
  48. Lancet. 2013 Sep 28;382(9898):1121-9 [PMID: 24075052]
  49. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2015 Sep;42(5):533-44 [PMID: 24193818]
  50. J Clin Oncol. 2014 Jul 10;32(20):2133-41 [PMID: 24888814]
  51. Psychooncology. 2014 Jul;23(7):835-8 [PMID: 24991748]
  52. JAMA Surg. 2014 Oct;149(10):1015-21 [PMID: 25141939]
  53. Health Expect. 2015 Dec;18(6):2928-40 [PMID: 25267503]
  54. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. 2014 Oct 16;9:26152 [PMID: 25326092]
  55. J Health Psychol. 2016 Aug;21(8):1688-99 [PMID: 25516557]
  56. World J Surg. 2015 Aug;39(8):1909-21 [PMID: 25896900]
  57. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2015 Dec;19(6):612-8 [PMID: 25963860]
  58. Can J Hosp Pharm. 2015 May-Jun;68(3):226-31 [PMID: 26157184]
  59. Ann Oncol. 2015 Sep;26 Suppl 5:v8-30 [PMID: 26314782]
  60. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016 Jan;137(1):12-8 [PMID: 26710002]
  61. HERD. 2016 Jul;9(4):16-25 [PMID: 26791375]
  62. Qual Soc Work. 2016 Jan;15(1):118-133 [PMID: 26811696]
  63. J Nucl Med. 2016 Feb;57 Suppl 1:9S-16S [PMID: 26834110]
  64. Front Surg. 2016 Jan 19;2:71 [PMID: 26835456]
  65. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016 Aug;138(2):203e-11e [PMID: 27465180]
  66. CMAJ. 2016 Dec 6;188(17-18):E474-E483 [PMID: 27503870]
  67. J Health Psychol. 2018 Oct;23(12):1598-1609 [PMID: 27596275]
  68. Soc Sci Med. 2018 Mar;200:44-51 [PMID: 29421471]
  69. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 Mar;143(3):465e-476e [PMID: 30817637]
  70. Health Serv Res. 1974 Fall;9(3):208-20 [PMID: 4436074]
  71. Med Care. 1981 Feb;19(2):127-40 [PMID: 7206846]
  72. J Health Soc Behav. 1995 Mar;36(1):1-10 [PMID: 7738325]
  73. Health Aff (Millwood). 1998 Jan-Feb;17(1):180-6 [PMID: 9455029]

Grants

  1. /CIHR

MeSH Term

Adult
Aged
Breast Neoplasms
Female
Health Services Accessibility
Humans
Mammaplasty
Mastectomy
Middle Aged
Ontario
Patient Acceptance of Health Care
Physician-Patient Relations
Qualitative Research
Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Article has an altmetric score of 5

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0BRacceptabilitybreastcanceraccessinterviewstimestudyqualitativewomen'sresearchdiagnosisundergonemastectomyparticipantssurgicalthemespatientOBJECTIVES:limitedreconstructionpatientsperformedexplorepatients'DESIGN:QualitativeSETTING:RecruitmentsixOntariohospitalsacrossprovinceTorontoOttawaHamiltonLondonThunderBayWindsorwellkeyorganisationsNovember2017June2018PARTICIPANTS:WomenageplanningundergowithoutINTERVENTION:Sixty-minutesemi-structuredanalysedusingdescriptivemethodologydrawsinductivethematicanalysisOUTCOME:telephonediscussedexperienceaccessingfocusingoptionpost-mastectomyRESULTS:2811interview56laterdateFourinter-relatedidentifiedreflectedevolvingideasprogresseddifferentstagesdiseasetreatmentdevelopedwere:1survival2influencephysicians3patient'sshiftacceptance4needjustifymanywomensurgerybecamesalientthusaddingtemporalelementexistingframeworkCONCLUSION:negativelyinfluencedpoorprocedurecomplexprocesstakingplacemomentconsiderationmayimprovedenhancingsuggestadaptingcurrentcareframeworksdevelopingconceptaffectsreconstruction:

Similar Articles

Cited By