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.

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.

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.