Pre-consultation educational group intervention to improve shared decision-making for postmastectomy breast reconstruction: a pilot randomized controlled trial
- 1.3k Downloads
Breast cancer survivors who make preference-sensitive decisions about postmastectomy breast reconstruction often have large gaps in knowledge and undergo procedures that are misaligned with their treatment goals. We evaluated the feasibility and effect of a pre-consultation educational group intervention on the decision-making process for breast reconstruction.
We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) where participants were randomly assigned to the intervention with routine education or routine education alone. The outcomes evaluated were decisional conflict, decision self-efficacy, satisfaction with information, perceived involvement in care, and uptake of reconstruction following surgical consultation. Trial feasibility and acceptability were evaluated, and effect sizes were calculated to determine the primary outcome for the full-scale RCT.
Of the 41 patients enrolled, recruitment rate was 72 %, treatment fidelity was 98 %, and retention rate was 95 %. The Cohen’s d effect size in reduction of decisional conflict was moderate to high for the intervention group compared to routine education (0.69, 95 % CI = 0.02–1.42), while the effect sizes of increase in decision self-efficacy (0.05, 95 % CI = −0.60–0.71) and satisfaction with information (0.11, 95 % CI = −0.53–0.76) were small. A higher proportion of patients receiving routine education signed informed consent to undergo breast reconstruction (14/20 or 70 %) compared to the intervention group (8/21 or 38 %) P = 0.06.
A pre-consultation educational group intervention improves patients’ shared decision-making quality compared to routine preoperative patient education. A full-scale definitive RCT is warranted based on high feasibility outcomes, and the primary outcome for the main trial will be decisional conflict.
KeywordsBreast reconstruction surgery Shared decision-making Patient education Patient-physician communication Randomized controlled trial
Funding was received from the Physician Services Incorporated Foundation (Dr. Platt—resident, Dr. Zhong—supervisor).
This study was approved by the appropriate ethics committee (UHN REB).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no financial relationship with the Physician Services Incorporated Foundation. The authors have full control of all primary data and agree to allow the journal to review the data if requested.
- 7.Amsellem M, Ahmed I, Harvey A, Raia C, Weiss E, Buzaglo J (2011) Cancer support community patient-provider communication and patient informational needs for breast reconstruction postmastectomy: results from a national survey. Paper presented at the Poster session presented at: Thirty-Fourth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, San Antonio, TXGoogle Scholar
- 8.Zhong T, Hu J, Bagher S, O’Neill AC, Beber B, Hofer SO, Metcalfe K, Zhong T, Hu J, Bagher S, O’Neill AC, Beber B, Hofer SO, Metcalfe KA (2013) Decision regret following breast reconstruction: the role of self-efficacy and satisfaction with information in the preoperative period. Plast Reconstr Surg 132(5):724e–734e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a3bf5d CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Bandura A (ed) (1997) Self efficacy: the exercise of control. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 15.Platt J, Baxter N, Jones J, Metcalfe K, Causarano N, Hofer SO, O’Neill A, Cheng T, Starenkyj E, Zhong T (2013) Pre-consultation educational group intervention to improve shared decision-making in postmastectomy breast reconstruction: study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial. Trials 14:199. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-14-199 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
- 19.Janis IL, Mann L (1977) Decision making. The Free press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 20.Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S (1980) Knowing what you want: measuring labile values. In: Wallsten TS (ed) Cognitive processes in choice and decision behavior. L. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, p 285Google Scholar
- 22.Orem DE (1995) Nursing: concepts of practice, 5th edn. Mosby, TorontoGoogle Scholar
- 24.O’Connor AM (2006) Ottawa decision support framework to address decisional conflict. http://decisionaid.ohri.ca/docs/develop/ODSF.pdf. Accessed Oct 29 2011
- 25.Stacey D, Légaré F, Col N, Bennett C, Barry M, Eden K, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Lyddiatt A, Thomson R, Trevena L, Wu J (2014) Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev:CD001431 doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub4Google Scholar
- 26.Spielberger CD, Gorsuch RL, Lushene R, Vagg PR, Jacobs GA (1983) Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
- 30.O’Connor AM (1993) User Manual - Decision Conflict Scale (16 item statement format) Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. http://decisionaid.ohri.ca/docs/develop/User_Manuals/UM_Decisional_Conflict.pdf. Accessed Nov 10 2011
- 31.O’Connor AM (1995) User manual—decision self-efficacy scale Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. http://decisionaid.ohri.ca/docs/develop/user_manuals/UM_decision_selfefficacy.pdf. Accessed Jan 21 2012
- 32.Hacking B, Wallace L, Scott S, Kosmala-Anderson J, Belkora J, McNeill A (2013) Testing the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of a ‘decision navigation’ intervention for early stage prostate cancer patients in Scotland-a randomised controlled trial. Psychooncology 22(5):1017–1024. doi: 10.1002/pon.3093 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 33.Smith MY, Winkel G, Egert J, Diaz-Wionczek M, DuHamel KN (2006) Patient-physician communication in the context of persistent pain: validation of a modified version of the patients’ perceived involvement in care scale. J Pain Symptom Manage 32(1):71–81. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2006.01.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 36.Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. L. Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
- 38.NANDA International (2005) NANDA nursing diagnoses : definitions & classification, 2005–2006. North American Nursing Diagnosis Association, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar