Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 330

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Satisfaction with Surgery Outcomes and the Decision Process in a Population‐Based Sample of Women with Breast Cancer

Open access
Lantz, Paula M., Janz, Nancy K., Fagerlin, Angela, Schwartz, Kendra, Liu, Lihua, Lakhani, Indu, Salem, Barbara, Katz, Steven J.·2005·Health Services Research

Abstract

Objective. To better understand medical decision making in the context of “preference sensitive care,” we investigated factors associated with breast cancer patients' satisfaction with the type of surgery received and with the decision process. Data Sources/Data Collection. For a population‐based sample of recently diagnosed breast cancer patients in the Detroit and Los Angeles metropolitan areas (N=1,633), demographic and clinical data were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results tumor registry, and self‐reported psychosocial and satisfaction data were obtained through a mailed survey (78.4 percent response rate). Study Design. Cross‐sectional design in which multivariable logistic regression was used to identify sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with three satisfaction measures: low satisfaction with surgery type, low satisfaction with the decision process, and decision regret. Principal Findings. Overall, there were high levels of satisfaction with both surgery and the decision process, and low rates of decision regret. Ethnic minority women and those with low incomes were more likely to have low satisfaction or decision regret. In addition, the match between patient preferences regarding decision involvement and their actual level of involvement was a strong indicator of satisfaction and decision regret/ambivalence. While having less involvement than preferred was a significant indicator of low satisfaction and regret, having more involvement than preferred was also a risk factor. Women who received mastectomy without reconstruction were more likely to report low satisfaction with surgery (odds ratio [OR]=1.54, p<.05), low satisfaction with the process (OR=1.37, p<.05), and decision regret (OR=1.55, p<.05) compared with those receiving breast conserving surgery (BCS). An additional finding was that as patients' level of involvement in the decision process increased, the rate of mastectomy also increased (p<.001). Conclusions. A significant proportion of breast cancer patients experience a decision process that matches their preferences for participation, and report satisfaction with both the process and the outcome. However, women who report more involvement in the decision process are significantly less likely to receive a lumpectomy. Thus, increasing patient involvement in the decision process will not necessarily increase use of BCS or lead to greater satisfaction. The most salient aspect for satisfaction with the decision making process is the match between patients' preferences and experiences regarding participation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00383.x

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 41 references

Cited by

See all 330

Metadata

Authors
Lantz, P. M., Janz, N. K., Fagerlin, A., Schwartz, K., Liu, L., Lakhani, I., Salem, B., & Katz, S. J.
Venue
Health Services Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-05-24
Volume
40
Issue
3
Pages
745-768
ISSN
  • 0017-9124 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-6773
OpenAlex
W1871291000
Cited by
330
References
41
FWCI
34.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Satisfaction with Surgery Outcomes and the Decision Process in a Population‐Based Sample of Women with Breast Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00383.x
The paper
Lantz, P. M., Janz, N. K., Fagerlin, A., Schwartz, K., Liu, L., Lakhani, I., Salem, B., & Katz, S. J. (2005). Satisfaction with Surgery Outcomes and the Decision Process in a Population‐Based Sample of Women with Breast Cancer. Health Services Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00383.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.