ArticlePatient preference and adherence2021
Shared Decision-Making in Breast Reconstruction for Breast Cancer Patients: A Scoping Review.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Barriers and facilitators to shared decision-making for patients with cancer and health care providers based on the COM-B model: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
- Assessing the Content and Effect of Web-Based Decision Aids for Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Development of a nursing-sensitive quality evaluation indicator system for perioperative care in breast reconstruction surgery: A Delphi study.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2026Article
- Implementing Patient Decision Aids for Insulin Initiation in China: What are the Barriers and Facilitators? A TDF-Based Qualitative Study.Journal of diabetes research · 2026Article
- Clinical decision-making frameworks for pandemic preparedness and response: A scoping review.Health promotion perspectives · 2025Review
- Decision-making Tools for Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction: A Scoping Review.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Embodied conversational agents for shared decision-making: a scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Shared Decision-Making Behavior in Surgery Among Early Breast Cancer Patients and Associated Factors Using COM-B Model: A Latent Profile Analysis.Journal of nursing management · 2025Article
- Effect of shared decision-making in patients with breast cancer undergoing breast reconstruction surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2024Review
- Article
- Beyond Mastectomy: The Incidence of Subsequent Aesthetic Procedures after Mastectomy with and without Breast Reconstruction.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- Quality evaluation of health information about breast cancer treatment found on WeChat public accounts.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2023Article
- Development and implementation of a decision aid for post-mastectomy breast reconstruction for Japanese women with breast cancer: a field-testing study.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2023Article
- Differences in Preoperative Health-Related Quality of Life between Women Receiving Mastectomy or Breast Conserving Surgery in a Prospectively Recruited Cohort of Breast Cancer Patients.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Article
- Establishing the Competency Development and Talent Cultivation Strategies for Physician-Patient Shared Decision-Making Competency Based on the IAA-NRM Approach.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Article
- BraxonFrontiers in surgery · 2022Review
- Barriers and Facilitators for Shared Decision Making in Breast Reconstruction among Stakeholders in the Chinese Context: A Qualitative Study.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For most breast cancer (BC) patients who have undergone a mastectomy, the decision whether to proceed with breast reconstruction (BR) is complicated and requires deliberation. Shared decision-making (SDM) helps to address those needs and promote informed value-based decisions. However, little is known about the SDM status for BR in BC patients. This scoping review describes: 1) basic characteristics of studies on BR SDM in BC patients; 2) factors influencing BR SDM in BC patients; 3) experience and perception of BR SDM in BC patients; and 4) outcome measures reported. This review was performed in accordance with the Arksey and O'Malley methodology. A total of 5 English and 4 Chinese databases were searched, as well as different sources from grey literature. The data extraction form was developed by referring to the objectives and the Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF). Data was analyzed using thematic analysis, framework analysis and descriptive statistics, with findings presented in the tables and diagrams. A total of 1481 records were retrieved and 42 of these included after screening. In 21 (21/42, 50%) of the studies, patient decision aids (PDAs) were utilized, and in 17 (17/42, 40.48%) of the studies, the factors influencing the implementation of SDM were explored. Of these 17 studies, the factors influencing the implementation of SDM were categorized into the following: the patient level (17/17, 100%), the healthcare level (2/17, 11.76%) and the organizational and system level (7/17, 41.18%). A total of 8 (19.05%) of the 42 studies focused on patients' experiences and perceptions of SDM, and all studies used qualitative research methods. Of these 8 studies, a total of 7 (7/8, 87.50%) focused on patients' experiences of SDM participation, and 4 (4/8, 50.00%) focused on patients' perceptions of SDM. A total of 24 studies (24/42, 57.14%) involved quantitative outcome measures, where 49 items were divided into three classifications according to the outcomes of ODSF: the quality of the decision (17/24, 70.83%), the quality of the decision-making process (20/24, 83.33%), and impact (13/24, 54.17%). Although researchers have paid less attention to other research points in the field of SDM, compared to the design and application of SDM interventional tools, the research team still presents some equally noteworthy points through scoping review. For instance, the various factors influencing BC patients' participation in SDM for BR (especially at the healthcare provider level and at the organizational system level), patients' experiences and perceptions. Systematic reviews (SRs) should be conducted to quantify the impact of these different factors on BR SDM. Implementation of scientific theories and methods can inform the exploration and integration of these factors.
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.