Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Qualitative analysis of how patients decide that they want risk-reducing mastectomy, and the implications for surgeons in responding to emotionally-motivated patient requests

Stephen L Brown, Sudeep Gupta, Demian Whiting, Hannah G Fielden, Pooja Saini, Helen Beesley, Christopher Holcombe, Susan Holcombe, Lyn Greenhalgh, Louise Fairburn, Peter Salmon

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

22 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective

Contemporary approaches to medical decision-making advise that clinicians should respect patients' decisions. However, patients' decisions are often shaped by heuristics, such as being guided by emotion, rather than by objective risk and benefit. Risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) decisions focus this dilemma sharply. RRM reduces breast cancer (BC) risk, but is invasive and can have iatrogenic consequences. Previous evidence suggests that emotion guides patients' decision-making about RRM. We interviewed patients to better understand how they made decisions about RRM, using findings to consider how clinicians could ethically respond to their decisions.

Methods

Qualitative face-to-face interviews with 34 patients listed for RRM surgery and two who had decided against RRM.

Results

Patients generally did not use objective risk estimates or, indeed, consider risks and benefits of RRM. Instead emotions guided their decisions: they chose RRM because they feared BC and wanted to do 'all they could' to prevent it. Most therefore perceived RRM to be the 'obvious' option and made the decision easily. However, many recounted extensive post-decisional deliberation, generally directed towards justifying the original decision. A few patients deliberated before the decision because fears of surgery counterbalanced those of BC.

Conclusion

Patients seeking RRM were motivated by fear of BC, and the need to avoid potential regret for not doing all they could to prevent it. We suggest that choices such as that for RRM, which are made emotionally, can be respected as autonomous decisions, provided patients have considered risks and benefits. Drawing on psychological theory about how people do make decisions, as well as normative views of how they should, we propose that practitioners can guide consideration of risks and benefits even, where necessary, after patients have opted for surgery. This model of practice could be extended to other medical decisions that are influenced by patients' emotions.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere0178392
Pages (from-to)1-13
JournalPLoS One
Volume12
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 31 Dec 2017

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Qualitative analysis of how patients decide that they want risk-reducing mastectomy, and the implications for surgeons in responding to emotionally-motivated patient requests'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this