Cargando…

Qualitative analysis of how patients decide that they want risk-reducing mastectomy, and the implications for surgeons in responding to emotionally-motivated patient requests

OBJECTIVE: Contemporary approaches to medical decision-making advise that clinicians should respect patients’ decisions. However, patients’ decisions are often shaped by heuristics, such as being guided by emotion, rather than by objective risk and benefit. Risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) decisions f...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Brown, Stephen L., Whiting, Demian, Fielden, Hannah G., Saini, Pooja, Beesley, Helen, Holcombe, Christopher, Holcombe, Susan, Greenhalgh, Lyn, Fairburn, Louise, Salmon, Peter
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5446175/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28552971
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178392
_version_ 1783239020976799744
author Brown, Stephen L.
Whiting, Demian
Fielden, Hannah G.
Saini, Pooja
Beesley, Helen
Holcombe, Christopher
Holcombe, Susan
Greenhalgh, Lyn
Fairburn, Louise
Salmon, Peter
author_facet Brown, Stephen L.
Whiting, Demian
Fielden, Hannah G.
Saini, Pooja
Beesley, Helen
Holcombe, Christopher
Holcombe, Susan
Greenhalgh, Lyn
Fairburn, Louise
Salmon, Peter
author_sort Brown, Stephen L.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Contemporary approaches to medical decision-making advise that clinicians should respect patients’ decisions. However, patients’ decisions are often shaped by heuristics, such as being guided by emotion, rather than by objective risk and benefit. Risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) decisions focus this dilemma sharply. RRM reduces breast cancer (BC) risk, but is invasive and can have iatrogenic consequences. Previous evidence suggests that emotion guides patients’ decision-making about RRM. We interviewed patients to better understand how they made decisions about RRM, using findings to consider how clinicians could ethically respond to their decisions. METHODS: Qualitative face-to-face interviews with 34 patients listed for RRM surgery and two who had decided against RRM. RESULTS: Patients generally did not use objective risk estimates or, indeed, consider risks and benefits of RRM. Instead emotions guided their decisions: they chose RRM because they feared BC and wanted to do ‘all they could’ to prevent it. Most therefore perceived RRM to be the ‘obvious’ option and made the decision easily. However, many recounted extensive post-decisional deliberation, generally directed towards justifying the original decision. A few patients deliberated before the decision because fears of surgery counterbalanced those of BC. CONCLUSION: Patients seeking RRM were motivated by fear of BC, and the need to avoid potential regret for not doing all they could to prevent it. We suggest that choices such as that for RRM, which are made emotionally, can be respected as autonomous decisions, provided patients have considered risks and benefits. Drawing on psychological theory about how people do make decisions, as well as normative views of how they should, we propose that practitioners can guide consideration of risks and benefits even, where necessary, after patients have opted for surgery. This model of practice could be extended to other medical decisions that are influenced by patients’ emotions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5446175
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54461752017-06-12 Qualitative analysis of how patients decide that they want risk-reducing mastectomy, and the implications for surgeons in responding to emotionally-motivated patient requests Brown, Stephen L. Whiting, Demian Fielden, Hannah G. Saini, Pooja Beesley, Helen Holcombe, Christopher Holcombe, Susan Greenhalgh, Lyn Fairburn, Louise Salmon, Peter PLoS One Research Article OBJECTIVE: Contemporary approaches to medical decision-making advise that clinicians should respect patients’ decisions. However, patients’ decisions are often shaped by heuristics, such as being guided by emotion, rather than by objective risk and benefit. Risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) decisions focus this dilemma sharply. RRM reduces breast cancer (BC) risk, but is invasive and can have iatrogenic consequences. Previous evidence suggests that emotion guides patients’ decision-making about RRM. We interviewed patients to better understand how they made decisions about RRM, using findings to consider how clinicians could ethically respond to their decisions. METHODS: Qualitative face-to-face interviews with 34 patients listed for RRM surgery and two who had decided against RRM. RESULTS: Patients generally did not use objective risk estimates or, indeed, consider risks and benefits of RRM. Instead emotions guided their decisions: they chose RRM because they feared BC and wanted to do ‘all they could’ to prevent it. Most therefore perceived RRM to be the ‘obvious’ option and made the decision easily. However, many recounted extensive post-decisional deliberation, generally directed towards justifying the original decision. A few patients deliberated before the decision because fears of surgery counterbalanced those of BC. CONCLUSION: Patients seeking RRM were motivated by fear of BC, and the need to avoid potential regret for not doing all they could to prevent it. We suggest that choices such as that for RRM, which are made emotionally, can be respected as autonomous decisions, provided patients have considered risks and benefits. Drawing on psychological theory about how people do make decisions, as well as normative views of how they should, we propose that practitioners can guide consideration of risks and benefits even, where necessary, after patients have opted for surgery. This model of practice could be extended to other medical decisions that are influenced by patients’ emotions. Public Library of Science 2017-05-26 /pmc/articles/PMC5446175/ /pubmed/28552971 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178392 Text en © 2017 Brown et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Brown, Stephen L.
Whiting, Demian
Fielden, Hannah G.
Saini, Pooja
Beesley, Helen
Holcombe, Christopher
Holcombe, Susan
Greenhalgh, Lyn
Fairburn, Louise
Salmon, Peter
Qualitative analysis of how patients decide that they want risk-reducing mastectomy, and the implications for surgeons in responding to emotionally-motivated patient requests
title Qualitative analysis of how patients decide that they want risk-reducing mastectomy, and the implications for surgeons in responding to emotionally-motivated patient requests
title_full Qualitative analysis of how patients decide that they want risk-reducing mastectomy, and the implications for surgeons in responding to emotionally-motivated patient requests
title_fullStr Qualitative analysis of how patients decide that they want risk-reducing mastectomy, and the implications for surgeons in responding to emotionally-motivated patient requests
title_full_unstemmed Qualitative analysis of how patients decide that they want risk-reducing mastectomy, and the implications for surgeons in responding to emotionally-motivated patient requests
title_short Qualitative analysis of how patients decide that they want risk-reducing mastectomy, and the implications for surgeons in responding to emotionally-motivated patient requests
title_sort qualitative analysis of how patients decide that they want risk-reducing mastectomy, and the implications for surgeons in responding to emotionally-motivated patient requests
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5446175/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28552971
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178392
work_keys_str_mv AT brownstephenl qualitativeanalysisofhowpatientsdecidethattheywantriskreducingmastectomyandtheimplicationsforsurgeonsinrespondingtoemotionallymotivatedpatientrequests
AT whitingdemian qualitativeanalysisofhowpatientsdecidethattheywantriskreducingmastectomyandtheimplicationsforsurgeonsinrespondingtoemotionallymotivatedpatientrequests
AT fieldenhannahg qualitativeanalysisofhowpatientsdecidethattheywantriskreducingmastectomyandtheimplicationsforsurgeonsinrespondingtoemotionallymotivatedpatientrequests
AT sainipooja qualitativeanalysisofhowpatientsdecidethattheywantriskreducingmastectomyandtheimplicationsforsurgeonsinrespondingtoemotionallymotivatedpatientrequests
AT beesleyhelen qualitativeanalysisofhowpatientsdecidethattheywantriskreducingmastectomyandtheimplicationsforsurgeonsinrespondingtoemotionallymotivatedpatientrequests
AT holcombechristopher qualitativeanalysisofhowpatientsdecidethattheywantriskreducingmastectomyandtheimplicationsforsurgeonsinrespondingtoemotionallymotivatedpatientrequests
AT holcombesusan qualitativeanalysisofhowpatientsdecidethattheywantriskreducingmastectomyandtheimplicationsforsurgeonsinrespondingtoemotionallymotivatedpatientrequests
AT greenhalghlyn qualitativeanalysisofhowpatientsdecidethattheywantriskreducingmastectomyandtheimplicationsforsurgeonsinrespondingtoemotionallymotivatedpatientrequests
AT fairburnlouise qualitativeanalysisofhowpatientsdecidethattheywantriskreducingmastectomyandtheimplicationsforsurgeonsinrespondingtoemotionallymotivatedpatientrequests
AT salmonpeter qualitativeanalysisofhowpatientsdecidethattheywantriskreducingmastectomyandtheimplicationsforsurgeonsinrespondingtoemotionallymotivatedpatientrequests