MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1006/pmed.1999.0524

Медицинская библиотека · Preventive medicine · 1999

Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy decision making: A vignette study.

Stefanek M, Enger C, Benkendorf J, Flamm Honig S, Lerman C

СтатьяПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the perception of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (BPM), and whether perceptions are influenced by a family history of breast cancer. It is also unclear what factors may play a role in selecting BPM for follow-up care.

METHODS

Samples of predominantly Caucasian, well-educated women with (n = 129) and without (n = 104) family histories of breast cancer were provided a vignette of a woman at increased risk. They selected one of two follow-up options: (1) clinical breast examination, breast self exam, and annual mammography or (2) BPM.

RESULTS

The samples did not differ on the decision to select BPM (29.5% vs 22.1%). The family history sample reported worry about breast cancer as a problem (34.4%) more often than women with no history (15.7%). Multivariate analysis found worry and estimated 10-year risk of the woman in the vignette as significant predictors of selecting BPM.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 25% of our sample selected BPM as the preferred option. The majority supported the need to discuss BPM among women at increased risk. Finally, both factors associated with the selection of BPM (worry, risk assessment) are potentially amenable to psychosocial or educational approaches. There is a clear need for assessment of worry and risk perception prior to surgical decision making.

Для цитирования: Stefanek M, Enger C, Benkendorf J, Flamm Honig S, Lerman C. Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy decision making: A vignette study.. Preventive medicine. 1999. DOI: 10.1006/pmed.1999.0524.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.