A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Implementation of BREASTChoice , a Multilevel Breast Reconstruction Decision Support Tool With Personalized Risk Prediction.

OBJECTIVE: To implement the BREASTChoice decision tool into the electronic health record and evaluate its effectiveness. BACKGROUND: BREASTChoice , is a multilevel decision tool that: 1) educates patients about breast reconstruction; 2) estimates personalized risk of complications; 3) clarifies patient preferences; and 4) informs clinicians about patients' risk and preferences. METHODS: A multisite randomized controlled trial enrolled adult women with stage 0-III breast malignancy undergoing mastectomy. Participants were randomized to BREASTChoice or a control website. A survey assessed knowledge, preferences, decisional conflict, shared decision-making, preferred treatment, and usability. We conducted intent-to-treat (ITT), per-protocol (PP) analyses (those randomized to BREASTChoice who accessed the tool), and stratified analyses. RESULTS: 23/25 eligible clinicians enrolled. 369/761 (48%) contacted patients enrolled and were randomized. Patients' average age was 51 years; 15% were older than 65. BREASTChoice participants had higher knowledge than control participants (ITT: mean 70.6 vs. 67.4, P =0.08; PP: mean 71.4 vs. 67.4, P =0.03), especially when stratified by site (ITT: P =0.04, PP: P =0.01), age (ITT: P =0.04, PP: P =0.02), and race (ITT: P =0.04, PP: P =0.01). BREASTChoice did not improve decisional conflict, match between preferences and treatment, or shared decision-making. In PP analyses, fewer high-risk patients using BREASTChoice chose reconstruction. BREASTChoice had high usability. CONCLUSIONS: BREASTChoice is a novel decision tool incorporating risk prediction, patient education, and clinician engagement. Patients using BREASTChoice had higher knowledge; older adults and those from racially minoritized backgrounds especially benefitted. There was no impact on other decision outcomes. Future studies should overcome implementation barriers and specifically examine decision outcomes among high-risk patients.

Patient-driven decisions and perceptions of the 'safest possible choice': insights from patient-provider conversations about how some breast cancer patients choose contralateral prophylactic mastectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Observe patient-clinician communication to gain insight about the reasons underlying the choice of patients with unilateral breast cancer to undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM), despite lack of survival benefit, risk of harms, and cautions expressed by surgical guidelines and clinicians. METHODS & MEASURES: WORDS is a prospective study that explored patient-clinician communication and patient decision making. Participants recorded clinical visits through a downloadable mobile application. We analyzed 44 recordings from 22 patients: 9 who chose CPM, 8 who considered CPM but decided against it, and 5 who never considered CPM. We used abductive analysis combined with constructivist grounded theory methods. RESULTS: Decisions to undergo CPM are patient-driven and motivated by perceptions that CPM is the most aggressive, and therefore safest, treatment option available. These decisions are shaped not primarily by the content of conversations with clinicians, but by the history of cancer in patients' families, their own first-hand experiences with cancers among loved ones, fear for their children, and anxiety about cancer recurrence. CONCLUSION: The perception that CPM is the safest, most aggressive option strongly influences patients, despite scientific evidence to the contrary. Future efforts to address high CPM rates should focus on patient-driven decision making and cancer-related fears.

Applying the Urgent Maternal Warning Signs Initiative in a Novel Setting.

ABSTRACT: Symptoms of urgent maternal warning signs (UMWS) may occur during pregnancy or after delivery and may have lasting effects or indicate a life-threatening situation if left untreated. The state department of health sponsored a quality improvement project (QIP) to broaden the reach of UMWS education beyond traditional clinical settings, to public health settings where prenatal and postpartum women are seen. Specifically, the QIP implemented process changes to provide education (written and verbal) and resources to individuals receiving services from Women, Infants, and Children clinics during pregnancy and up to 12 weeks postpartum. Clinics submitted participant-level data although the Research Electronic Data Capture secure data portal. The key results indicated an increase in both written and verbal education. In addition, the project monitored referrals made specific to conditions identified through project-specific data collection and the provision of UMWS education.

Using the sociotechnical model to conduct a focused usability assessment of a breast reconstruction decision tool.

INTRODUCTION: BREASTChoice is a web-based breast reconstruction decision aid. The previous clinical trial-prior to the adaptation of this refined tool in which we explored usability-measured decision quality, quality of life, patient activation, shared decision making, and treatment choice. The current usability study was designed to elicit patients' and clinicians' perspectives on barriers and facilitators for implementing BREASTChoice into the clinical workflow. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews with patients and clinicians from two Midwestern medical specialty centers from August 2020 to April 2021. Interviews were first double coded until coders achieved a kappa > 0.8 and percent agreement > 95%, then were coded independently. We used a sociotechnical framework to evaluate BREASTChoice's implementation and sustainability potential according to end-users, human-computer interaction, and contextual factors. RESULTS: Twelve clinicians and ten patients completed interviews. Using the sociotechnical framework we determined the following. People Using the Tool: Patients and clinicians agreed that BREASTChoice could help patients make more informed decisions about their reconstruction and prepare better for their first plastic surgery appointment. Workflow and Communications: They felt that BREASTChoice could improve communication and process if the patient could view the tool at home and/or in the waiting room. Clinicians suggested the information from BREASTChoice about patients' risks and preferences be included in the patient's chart or the clinician electronic health record (EHR) inbox for accessibility during the consultation. Human Computer Interface: Patients and clinicians stated that the tool contains helpful information, does not require much time for the patient to use, and efficiently fills gaps in knowledge. Although patients found the risk profile information helpful, they reported needing time to read and digest. CONCLUSION: BREASTChoice was perceived as highly usable by patients and clinicians and has the potential for sustainability. Future research will implement and test the tool after integrating the stakeholder-suggested changes to its delivery process and content. It is critical to conduct usability assessments such as these prior to decision aid implementation to ensure success of the tool to improve risk communication.

Operating on Anxiety: Negative Affect toward Breast Cancer and Choosing Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy.

BACKGROUND: Rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM)-removal of the healthy breast following breast cancer diagnosis-have increased, particularly among women for whom CPM provides no survival benefit. Affective (i.e., emotional) decision making is often blamed for this increase. We studied whether greater negative breast cancer affect could motivate uptake of CPM through increased cancer risk perceptions and biased treatment evaluations. METHODS: We randomly assigned healthy women with average breast-cancer risk (N = 1030; Mage = 44.14, SD = 9.23 y) to 1 of 3 affect conditions (negative v. neutral v. positive narrative manipulation) in a hypothetical online experiment in which they were asked to imagine being diagnosed with cancer in one breast. We assessed 1) treatment choice, 2) affect toward CPM, and 3) perceived risk of future breast cancer in each breast (cancer affected and healthy) following lumpectomy, single mastectomy, and CPM. RESULTS: The manipulation caused women in the negative and neutral narrative conditions (26.9% and 26.4%, respectively) to choose CPM more compared with the positive narrative condition (19.1%). Across conditions, women's CPM affect did not differ. However, exploratory analyses addressing a possible association of affect toward cancer-related targets suggested that women in the negative narrative condition may have felt more positively toward CPM than women in the positive narrative condition. The manipulation did not have significant effects on breast cancer risk perceptions. LIMITATIONS: The manipulation of affect had a small effect size, possibly due to the hypothetical nature of this study and/or strong a priori knowledge and attitudes about breast cancer and its treatment options. CONCLUSION: Increased negative affect toward breast cancer increased choice of CPM over other surgical options and might have motivated more positive affective evaluations of CPM. HIGHLIGHTS: This study used narratives to elicit different levels of negative integral affect toward breast cancer to investigate the effects of affect on breast cancer treatment choices.Increased negative affect toward breast cancer increased the choice of double mastectomy over lumpectomy and single mastectomy to treat a hypothetical, early-stage cancer.The narrative manipulation of negative affect toward breast cancer did not change the perceived risks of future cancer following any of the surgical interventions.Negative affect toward breast cancer may have biased affective evaluations of double mastectomy.

Integrating a Patient Decision Aid into the Electronic Health Record: A Case Report on the Implementation of BREASTChoice at 2 Sites.

Patient decision aids can support shared decision making and improve decision quality. However, decision aids are not widely used in clinical practice due to multiple barriers. Integrating patient decision aids into the electronic health record (EHR) can increase their use by making them more clinically relevant, personalized, and actionable. In this article, we describe the procedures and considerations for integrating a patient decision aid into the EHR, based on the example of BREASTChoice, a decision aid for breast reconstruction after mastectomy. BREASTChoice's unique features include 1) personalized risk prediction using clinical data from the EHR, 2) clinician- and patient-facing components, and 3) an interactive format. Integrating a decision aid with patient- and clinician-facing components plus interactive sections presents unique deployment issues. Based on this experience, we outline 5 key implementation recommendations: 1) engage all relevant stakeholders, including patients, clinicians, and informatics experts; 2) explicitly and continually map all persons and processes; 3) actively seek out pertinent institutional policies and procedures; 4) plan for integration to take longer than development of a stand-alone decision aid or one with static components; and 5) transfer knowledge about the software programming from one institution to another but expect local and context-specific changes. Integration of patient decision aids into the EHR is feasible and scalable but requires preparation for specific challenges and a flexible mindset focused on implementation. Highlights: Integrating an interactive decision aid with patient- and clinician-facing components into the electronic health record could advance shared decision making but presents unique implementation challenges.We successfully integrated a decision aid for breast reconstruction after mastectomy called BREASTChoice into the electronic health record.Based on this experience, we offer these implementation recommendations: 1) engage relevant stakeholders, 2) explicitly and continually map persons and processes, 3) seek out institutional policies and procedures, 4) plan for it to take longer than for a stand-alone decision aid, and 5) transfer software programming from one site to another but expect local changes.

Emotion and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: A prospective study into surgical decision-making.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with non-familial, unilateral breast cancer have a low risk of contralateral breast cancer. Thus, clinical studies have shown no survival benefit for patients who undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) compared to those undergoing unilateral surgeries for non-familial unilateral breast cancers. Despite this evidence, there has been a steady increase in rates of CPM in the U.S. Patient factors influencing this choice have been identified in previous studies, but seldom in a prospective manner. This prospective study was designed to assess emotion and any association with a patient's decision to ultimately undergo CPM. METHODS: We recruited patients with newly diagnosed, unilateral, non-metastatic breast cancer, who had not yet had surgery, to participate in a prospective, longitudinal study to examine the impact of emotions on CPM decision-making. RESULTS: Among the 86 final participants, all completed the pre-visit survey (100%) and 52 patients completed the post-visit survey (60%). Patients undergoing CPM were significantly younger than those who did not. There was no statistically significant association between emotion and receipt of CPM. There was a trend towards undergoing CPM in patients with a less open personality type and those with more negative emotion, though not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: This study found a trend toward increased CPM receipt in those with less open personality types and more negative emotion, especially post-consultation, but none of these findings was significant. Future work should include development of cancer-specific emotion scales and larger studies of possible connections between emotion, personality type and surgical decision-making for breast cancer patients.