ArticleBMJ open2019
How patient acceptability affects access to breast reconstruction: a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Understanding Disparities in Breast Reconstruction Rates in Regional Populations Following Oncologic Resection of Breast Cancer: A 10-Year Retrospective Observational Cohort Study.The breast journal · 2026Observational
- Article
- 'At least there is something in my bra': A qualitative study of women's experiences with oncoplastic breast surgery.Journal of advanced nursing · 2022Article
- Breast cancer treatment and survival differences in women in remote and socioeconomically disadvantaged areas, as demonstrated by linked data from New South Wales (NSW), Australia.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThere has been limited research on the acceptability of breast reconstruction (BR) to breast cancer patients. We performed interviews to explore breast cancer patients' acceptability of BR.
designQualitative study.
settingRecruitment from six Ontario hospitals across the province (Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton, London, Thunder Bay and Windsor) as well as key breast cancer organisations between November 2017 and June 2018.
participantsWomen of any age with a diagnosis of breast cancer planning to undergo or having undergone a mastectomy with or without BR.
interventionSixty-minute semi-structured interviews were analysed using qualitative descriptive methodology that draws on inductive thematic analysis. OUTCOME: In the telephone interviews, participants discussed their experience with breast cancer and accessing BR, focusing on the acceptability of BR as a surgical option post-mastectomy.
resultsOf the 28 participants, 11 had undergone BR at the time of the interview, 5 at the time of mastectomy and 6 at a later date. Four inter-related themes were identified that reflected women's evolving ideas about BR as they progressed through different stages of their disease and treatment. The themes we developed were: (1) cancer survival before BR, (2) the influence of physicians on BR acceptability, (3) patient's shift to BR acceptance and (4) women's need to justify BR. For many women, access to BR surgery became more salient over time, thus adding a temporal element to the existing access framework.
conclusionIn our study, women's access to BR was negatively influenced by the poor acceptability of this surgical procedure. The acceptability of BR was a complex process taking place over time, from the moment of breast cancer diagnosis to BR consideration. BR access may be improved through enhancing patient acceptability of BR. We suggest adapting the current access to care frameworks by further developing the concept of acceptability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.