Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31994007›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2021

PEGASUS: the Design of an Intervention to Facilitate Shared Decision-making in Breast Reconstruction.

A Clarke, N Paraskeva, P White, P Tollow, E Hansen, D Harcourt

Abstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A Novel Digital Educational Strategy Improves Treatment Adherence and Quality of Life in Patients with Multiple Myeloma.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2024
    Trial
  2. Surgical decision-making regarding hearing and ear reconstruction in craniofacial microsomia: Exploring caregiver narratives.Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery : official publication of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Surgical Informed Consent: A Scoping Review of Physician-facing Decision Support Tools.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

A ClarkeCentre for Appearance Research, University of the West of England, Frenchay Campus, Cold Harbour Lane, Bristol, BS16 1QY, UK. alexmacleodclarke@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-5479-9733
N ParaskevaCentre for Appearance Research, University of the West of England, Frenchay Campus, Cold Harbour Lane, Bristol, BS16 1QY, UK.
P WhiteCentre for Appearance Research, University of the West of England, Frenchay Campus, Cold Harbour Lane, Bristol, BS16 1QY, UK.
P TollowCentre for Appearance Research, University of the West of England, Frenchay Campus, Cold Harbour Lane, Bristol, BS16 1QY, UK.
E HansenRoyal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, Pond Street, London, NW3 2QG, UK.
D HarcourtCentre for Appearance Research, University of the West of England, Frenchay Campus, Cold Harbour Lane, Bristol, BS16 1QY, UK.

Funding

Breast Cancer Now 014NovPR415
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Studies have found varying levels of satisfaction after breast reconstruction surgery with a substantial group of patients reporting some level of regret about their decision. The variable outcomes reported by women undergoing breast reconstruction surgery suggest a role for improved pre-operative communication and shared decision-making (SDM) between patient and health professional. Pragmatic approaches such as decision aids have been evaluated, but the aim of the Patient Expectations and Goals Assisting Shared Understanding of Surgery (PEGASUS) intervention is to facilitate closer interaction between the patient and clinical team. PEGASUS is a standardised two-stage process, in which patients' goals are first elicited, ranked in importance and recorded before being used to frame discussion and decision-making with the surgeon managing care. Following the Medical Research Council (MRC) model, feasibility and acceptability studies have already been reported and a 4-year multicentre randomised controlled trial of 180 participants is underway, (completion 2020). This paper therefore focuses on the design of the intervention itself, in line with recent advice that interventions, in comparison with evaluations, commonly lack a theoretical base and are often under reported. We report a retrospective application of the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model to provide explicit detail of each step in the intervention design. This is intended to facilitate replication by other clinicians and to provide systematic guidance for others wishing to develop PEGASUS as a strategy for implementing SDM in other clinical populations. Trial Registration: ISRCTN 18000391 (DOI 10.1186/ISRCTN18000391) 27/01/2016.

Indexed as

MammaplastyPatient ParticipationDecision MakingDecision Making, SharedFemaleHumansMulticenter Studies as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRetrospective StudiesBehaviour changeBreast reconstructionCOM-BPEGASUSShared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID31994007
PMCPMC8099795

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.