ArticleJPRAS open2026
Enhancing patient engagement through an online educational module for gender-affirming mastectomy: A pilot study.
Article in JPRAS open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Purpose: Patients seeking gender-affirming mastectomy (GAM) frequently encounter barriers to care, including limited access to accurate and comprehensive preoperative education regarding surgical options. We conducted a pilot study to evaluate the effectiveness of an online educational module in improving patient understanding of GAM, reducing procedure-related anxiety, and increasing satisfaction with the surgical consultation. Methods: We developed a standardized online educational module delivering expert-reviewed information on GAM. Patients presenting for initial GAM consultation were randomly assigned using a computer-generated sequence to either a control arm (consultation only) or an intervention arm (consultation plus educational module). The consulting surgeon was blinded to group allocation. Pre- and post-consultation surveys assessed surgical readiness, encompassing procedural knowledge and anxiety, using a 7-point Likert scale. Post-consultation satisfaction was also evaluated. Statistical analyses included the Mann-Whitney U Test, chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests, and two-way repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni-corrected post hoc analyses. Results: Thirty-six patients were enrolled (18 intervention; 18 control). The intervention group had significantly higher post-consultation surgical readiness scores compared with their own pre-consultation scores (p=0.0002) and with post-consultation scores in the control group (p=0.0032). Post-consultation satisfaction scores were higher in the intervention arm, although this difference did not reach statistical significance (p=0.0579). All patients in the control group indicated that an additional educational resource would have been helpful. Conclusion: In this pilot study, an online educational module for GAM significantly improved patient-reported surgical readiness and reduced perioperative anxiety. This approach enhances patient preparedness and promotes shared surgical decision-making. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings and assess the effect of preoperative education on perioperative outcomes.
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.