Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

The development of a template for psychological assessment of women considering risk-reducing or contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: A national Delphi consensus study.

Psycho-oncology 2018 October
OBJECTIVE: Risk-reducing mastectomies (RRM) and contralateral prophylactic mastectomies (CPM) are increasingly prevalent strategies to reduce breast cancer risk. Given the associated physical and emotional challenges, presurgical psychological assessment is frequently recommended for this population, yet limited research exists to guide this. This study aimed to reach a consensus on the most relevant content and format of a psychological consultation prior to RRM/CPM.

METHODS: A modified two-round online Delphi study was conducted Australia-wide. Expert participants (n = 25), including psychologists, surgeons, nurses, oncologists, genetic specialists, and researchers completed a round-one survey, informed by a literature review, previous qualitative study and expert clinicians' input. This required participants to rate their agreement with 36 statements regarding potential content of a psychological consultation and provide feedback on format/structure. A round-two survey comprised items that had not reached consensus and six new items suggested by participants. Parameters for statement consensus were set a priori at >75% agreement.

RESULTS: Expert participants indicated agreement with the majority of statements (39/42, 92.8%), endorsing that the assessment should include (1) patient understanding of the RRM/CPM procedure/cancer risk, (2) potential physical/emotional impact of surgery, (3) informed decision-making, and (4) past/current psychological issues (anxiety and body image). A provisional assessment template and user manual is provided.

CONCLUSIONS: This research culminated in a consensus-based template to guide psychological assessment of women considering RRM/CPM. This enables health professionals to assess suitability for surgery and preempt challenges within a standardised framework. Future evaluation of the acceptability and effectiveness of the template in clinical settings is warranted.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app