基于人群样本的乳腺癌女性对手术结果及决策过程的满意度
Satisfaction with surgery outcomes and the decision process in a population-based sample of women with breast cancer.
作者信息
Lantz Paula M, Janz Nancy K, Fagerlin Angela, Schwartz Kendra, Liu Lihua, Lakhani Indu, Salem Barbara, Katz Steven J
机构信息
109 Observatory, Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2029, USA.
出版信息
Health Serv Res. 2005 Jun;40(3):745-67. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00383.x.
OBJECTIVE
To better understand medical decision making in the context of "preference sensitive care," we investigated factors associated with breast cancer patients' satisfaction with the type of surgery received and with the decision process.
DATA SOURCES/DATA COLLECTION: For a population-based sample of recently diagnosed breast cancer patients in the Detroit and Los Angeles metropolitan areas (N=1,633), demographic and clinical data were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results tumor registry, and self-reported psychosocial and satisfaction data were obtained through a mailed survey (78.4 percent response rate).
STUDY DESIGN
Cross-sectional design in which multivariable logistic regression was used to identify sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with three satisfaction measures: low satisfaction with surgery type, low satisfaction with the decision process, and decision regret.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
Overall, there were high levels of satisfaction with both surgery and the decision process, and low rates of decision regret. Ethnic minority women and those with low incomes were more likely to have low satisfaction or decision regret. In addition, the match between patient preferences regarding decision involvement and their actual level of involvement was a strong indicator of satisfaction and decision regret/ambivalence. While having less involvement than preferred was a significant indicator of low satisfaction and regret, having more involvement than preferred was also a risk factor. Women who received mastectomy without reconstruction were more likely to report low satisfaction with surgery (odds ratio [OR]=1.54, p<.05), low satisfaction with the process (OR=1.37, p<.05), and decision regret (OR=1.55, p<.05) compared with those receiving breast conserving surgery (BCS). An additional finding was that as patients' level of involvement in the decision process increased, the rate of mastectomy also increased (p<.001).
CONCLUSIONS
A significant proportion of breast cancer patients experience a decision process that matches their preferences for participation, and report satisfaction with both the process and the outcome. However, women who report more involvement in the decision process are significantly less likely to receive a lumpectomy. Thus, increasing patient involvement in the decision process will not necessarily increase use of BCS or lead to greater satisfaction. The most salient aspect for satisfaction with the decision making process is the match between patients' preferences and experiences regarding participation.
目的
为了更好地理解“偏好敏感型医疗”背景下的医疗决策,我们调查了与乳腺癌患者对所接受手术类型的满意度以及决策过程相关的因素。
数据来源/数据收集:对于底特律和洛杉矶大都市区近期确诊的乳腺癌患者的基于人群的样本(N = 1633),人口统计学和临床数据从监测、流行病学和最终结果肿瘤登记处获取,自我报告的心理社会和满意度数据通过邮寄调查获得(回复率为78.4%)。
研究设计
采用横断面设计,使用多变量逻辑回归来确定与三种满意度指标相关的社会人口统计学和临床因素:对手术类型的低满意度、对决策过程的低满意度以及决策遗憾。
主要发现
总体而言,患者对手术和决策过程的满意度较高,决策遗憾率较低。少数族裔女性和低收入女性更有可能对手术或决策感到低满意度或有决策遗憾。此外,患者对决策参与的偏好与其实际参与水平之间的匹配是满意度和决策遗憾/矛盾心理的有力指标。虽然参与程度低于偏好是低满意度和遗憾的重要指标,但参与程度高于偏好也是一个风险因素。与接受保乳手术(BCS)的患者相比,接受乳房切除且未进行重建的女性更有可能报告对手术的低满意度(优势比[OR]=1.54,p<.05)、对过程的低满意度(OR = 1.37,p<.05)以及决策遗憾(OR = 1.55,p<.05)。另一个发现是,随着患者在决策过程中的参与程度增加,乳房切除术的比例也增加(p<.001)。
结论
相当一部分乳腺癌患者经历的决策过程符合他们对参与的偏好,并对过程和结果都表示满意。然而,报告在决策过程中参与程度较高的女性接受乳房肿块切除术的可能性显著降低。因此,增加患者在决策过程中的参与度不一定会增加保乳手术的使用或带来更高的满意度。对决策过程满意度的最显著方面是患者对参与的偏好与体验之间的匹配。
相似文献
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009-10-7
Med Decis Making. 2015-5
Patient Educ Couns. 2007-3
引用本文的文献
Med Decis Making. 2025-7
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2025-4-21
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2024-2-1
本文引用的文献
Health Serv Res. 2002-4
J Womens Health Gend Based Med. 2001-9
Soc Sci Med. 2001-9