Cited by 39Women's cancer prevention and managementBRCA gene mutations in cancerBreast Implant and Reconstruction

A systematic review of women’s satisfaction and regret following risk-reducing mastectomy

Braude, Lucy, Kirsten, Laura, Gilchrist, Jemma, Juraskova, Ilona·2017·Patient Education and Counseling

Abstract

Objective A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies, to describe patient satisfaction and regret associated with risk-reducing mastectomies (RRM), and the patient-reported factors associated with these among women at high risk of developing breast cancer.Methods Studies were identified using Medline, CINAHL, Embase and PsycInfo databases (1995-2016). Data were extracted and crosschecked for accuracy. Article quality was assessed using standardised criteria.Results Of the 1657 unique articles identified, 30 studies met the inclusion criteria (n=23 quantitative studies, n=3 qualitative studies, n=4 mixed-method studies). Studies included were cross-sectional (n=23) or retrospective (n=7). General satisfaction with RRM, decision satisfaction and aesthetic satisfaction were generally high, although some women expressed regret around their decision and dissatisfaction with their appearance. Factors associated with both patient satisfaction and regret included: post-operative complications, body image changes, psychological distress and perceived inadequacy of information.Conclusion While satisfaction with RRM was generally high, some women had regrets and expressed dissatisfaction. Future research is needed to further explore RRM, and to investigate current satisfaction trends given the ongoing improvements to surgical and clinical practice.Practice implications Offering pre-operative preparation, decisional support and continuous psychological input may help to facilitate satisfaction with this complex procedure.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pec.2017.06.032

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 62 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Braude, L., Kirsten, L., Gilchrist, J., & Juraskova, I.
Affiliations
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Hobart Private Hospital (AU)
Corresponding author
Braude, Lucy
Venue
Patient Education and Counseling
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-12
Volume
100
Issue
12
Pages
2182-2189
ISSN
0738-3991 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2730953568
Cited by
39
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1
FWCI
0.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Patient Education and Counseling (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › BRCA gene mutations in cancer
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Breast Implant and Reconstruction
Keywords
prophylactic mastectomy, patient satisfaction, regret, breast cancer prevention, high-risk women, body image, postoperative complications, psychological distress, decision support, preoperative preparation, patient-reported outcomes
MeSH terms
Patient Reported Outcome Measures, Body Image, Breast Neoplasms, Decision Making, Emotions, Female, Humans, Mastectomy, Personal Satisfaction, Patient Satisfaction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review