Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34303378›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

Patients' and professionals' perspectives on implementation of opportunistic salpingectomy: a mixed-method study.

Malou E Gelderblom, Laura A M Van Lieshout, Jurgen M J Piek, Joanne A De Hullu, Rosella P M G Hermens

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Malou E Gelderblom *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Centre, PO Box 9101, 6500, HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Malou.gelderblom@radboudumc.nl.
Laura A M Van Lieshout *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Centre, PO Box 9101, 6500, HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Jurgen M J PiekDepartment of Obstetrics and gynecology, Catharina Cancer Institute, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Joanne A De HulluDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Centre, PO Box 9101, 6500, HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Rosella P M G HermensDepartment of IQ Health Care, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLRadboud University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo prevent ovarian cancer, several international societies have issued guidelines which recommend to discuss opportunistic salpingectomy with women undergoing pelvic surgery after completion of childbearing. The opportunistic salpingectomy refers to the additional removal of Fallopian tubes during pelvic surgery for another indication to reduce the risk of developing ovarian cancer. These recommendations emphasize the importance of counselling on benefits and risks of opportunistic salpingectomy but offer no guidance on their implementation in daily practice. The lack of a tailored implementation strategy has resulted in a wide variation in current practice. To reduce this practice variation, we identified influencing factors on implementing opportunistic salpingectomy from patients' and professionals' perspectives.

methodsWe conducted a mixed-method study between 2019 and 2020 throughout the Netherlands. In a qualitative phase, we conducted interviews with gynecologic patients (N = 11) and their professionals (N = 20) to explore barriers and facilitators, using an interview guide. In the quantitative phase, we quantified these barriers and facilitators among patients who underwent a hysterectomy or sterilization and were counselled on the opportunistic salpingectomy (N = 77), and members of the Dutch Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology (N = 204), using questionnaires. For both phases, barriers and facilitators were classified into the following domains: innovation, patient, healthcare professional, social setting, organization, and economic and political context.

resultsFor patients, main barriers were lack of knowledge about: the existence of the opportunistic salpingectomy (45%), size of the surgery (44%) and its associated possible disadvantages (37%). In addition, patients attributed their reluctance to concerns about the removal of healthy organs (46%). For professionals, main barriers were: patients' lack of knowledge of the size of surgery (85%) and its associated possible disadvantages (77%), the gap in evidence on long term risks and benefits (43%), the lack of feasibility in certain patients and during vaginal surgery (66%). Both patients (41%) and professionals (67%) identified the need for counselling material as facilitator.

conclusionTo reduce the variety in care regarding opportunistic salpingectomy, consensus and uniform counselling is needed. Including the opportunistic salpingectomy in gynecological guidelines and a decision aid for counselling could serve as tools to facilitate implementation.

Indexed as

Ovarian NeoplasmsSalpingectomyCarcinoma, Ovarian EpithelialFemaleHumansHysterectomyNetherlandsPregnancyImplementation scienceOvarian neoplasmsPrimary preventionRisk reductionSalpingectomy

Identifiers

PMID34303378
PMCPMC8310584
OpenAlexW3187025498

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.