4.3 Article

Participation in decision making regarding type of surgery and treatment-related satisfaction in North Indian women with early breast cancer

Journal

JOURNAL OF CANCER RESEARCH AND THERAPEUTICS
Volume 8, Issue 2, Pages 222-225

Publisher

MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.4103/0973-1482.98974

Keywords

Early breast cancer; patient involvement; patient satisfaction; type of surgery

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Breast conserving surgery followed by radiotherapy is an established modality of treatment in early breast cancer patients since three decades, but yet it has not been adopted worldwide. Purpose: The aim of this study is to investigate the factors affecting decision making regarding type of surgery and satisfaction with type of surgery in North Indian women with early breast cancer. Materials and Methods: A questionnaire was prepared to assess the factors responsible for decision making regarding type of surgery (breast conserving surgery (BCS) versus modified radical mastectomy (MRM) and to evaluate involvement of patient in decision making regarding the type of surgery. 47 women with early breast cancer on radiotherapy or on follow-up were interviewed by the resident doctors. Results: Out of 47 patients, 28 underwent BCS and 19 MRM. Women undergoing BCS were younger, more literate than in those undergoing MRM. In the two arms (BCS versus MRM), decision for surgery was made by surgeon alone in 53 versus 73, along with patient in 42 versus 6, and only 10 women participated in decision making in each arm. Only 50 versus 30 patients had a clear understanding of the risks and benefits of both procedures in the two arms. Conclusion: North Indian women do not independently take decision regarding any type of surgery. The reason for opting for either kind of surgery was based on surgeons recommendation or concern about recurrence. Body image was not an issue amongst majority.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available