Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36868139›Full record

ArticleBreast (Edinburgh, Scotland)2023

Factors impacting informed consent in cosmetic breast augmentation.

Stephen Whyte, Laura Bray, Martin Brumpton, Ho Fai Chan, Tim S Peltz, Manisha Tamar, Uwe Dulleck, Dietmar W Hutmacher

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Stephen WhyteSchool of Economics and Finance, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), 2 George St, Brisbane, QLD, 4001, Australia; Centre for Behavioural Economics, Society & Technology (BEST), Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, 4001, Australia; Centre in Regenerative Medicine, Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), 60 Musk Avenue, Kelvin Grove, QLD, 4059, Australia; ARC Training Centre for Cell and Tissue Engineering Technologies, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, 4059, Australia. Electronic address: sg.whyte@qut.edu.au.
Laura BrayCentre for Behavioural Economics, Society & Technology (BEST), Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, 4001, Australia; ARC Training Centre for Cell and Tissue Engineering Technologies, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, 4059, Australia; School of Mechanical, Medical and Process Engineering, Science and Engineering Faculty, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), 2 George St, Brisbane, QLD, 4001, Australia.
Martin BrumptonCentre for Behavioural Economics, Society & Technology (BEST), Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, 4001, Australia; Behavioural Economics Team of the Australian Government (BETA), Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet, Canberra, Australia.
Ho Fai ChanSchool of Economics and Finance, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), 2 George St, Brisbane, QLD, 4001, Australia; Centre for Behavioural Economics, Society & Technology (BEST), Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, 4001, Australia.
Tim S PeltzSurgical and Orthopaedic Research Laboratories, Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Manisha TamarCentre for Behavioural Economics, Society & Technology (BEST), Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, 4001, Australia; Queensland University of Technology (QUT), 2 George St, Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia.
Uwe DulleckSchool of Economics and Finance, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), 2 George St, Brisbane, QLD, 4001, Australia; Centre for Behavioural Economics, Society & Technology (BEST), Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, 4001, Australia; ARC Training Centre for Cell and Tissue Engineering Technologies, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, 4059, Australia.
Dietmar W HutmacherCentre for Behavioural Economics, Society & Technology (BEST), Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, 4001, Australia; ARC Training Centre in Additive Biomanufacturing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, 4059, Australia; ARC Training Centre for Multiscale 3D Imaging, Modelling and Manufacturing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, 4059, Australia.
Queensland University of Technology · AUUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFor women who undergo cosmetic breast augmentation, their post-operative risk assessment may not match their pre-operative understanding of the involved risks and likelihood of revision surgeries. This may be due to the potential issues surrounding whether patients are being fully informed about all possible risks and related financial implications during the consent phases of patient/doctor consultation.

methodsTo explore comprehension, risk preference, and perceptions of breast augmentation procedure, we conducted a recorded online experiment with 178 women (18-40 years) who received varying amounts of risk-related information from two experienced breast surgeons in a hypothetical first consultation scenario.

resultsWe find patient's age, self-rated health, income, education level, and openness to experience to be significant factors impacting initial breast augmentation risk preferences (before receiving any risk information). Further, more emotionally stable patients perceived greater breast augmentation risks, were less likely to recommend breast augmentation, and were more likely to acknowledge the likelihood for future revision surgery. After providing women with risk-related information we find increases in risk assessment in all treatment conditions, and that increased amounts of risk information do decrease women's willingness to recommend breast augmentation. But that increased risk information does not appear to increase women's assessment of the likelihood of future revision surgery. Finally, we find some participant individual differences (such as education level, having children, conscientiousness and emotional stability) appear to impact risk assessment post receiving risk information.

conclusionContinuous improvement of the informed consent consultation process is vital to optimising patient outcomes efficiently and cost-effectively. Greater acknowledgement and emphasis on disclosure of related risks and financial burden when complications arise is also important. As such, future behavioural research is warranted into the factors impacting women's understanding both prior to and across the BA informed consent process.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsMammaplastyChildDisclosureFemaleHumansInformed ConsentRisk AssessmentBehavioural economicsCosmetic breast augmentationInformed consentPreferencesRevision surgeryRisk

Identifiers

PMID36868139
PMCPMC9996440
OpenAlexW4321761390

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.