Navigating complex choices through legitimation: Narrative strategies in risk-reduction mastectomy decision-making among unaffected women with genetic risk for breast cancer in Switzerland

IF 1.8 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH SSM. Qualitative research in health Pub Date : 2024-12-30 DOI:10.1016/j.ssmqr.2024.100522
Maria Caiata-Zufferey , Reka Schweighoffer , Monica Aceti , Carla Pedrazzani , Maria C. Katapodi
{"title":"Navigating complex choices through legitimation: Narrative strategies in risk-reduction mastectomy decision-making among unaffected women with genetic risk for breast cancer in Switzerland","authors":"Maria Caiata-Zufferey ,&nbsp;Reka Schweighoffer ,&nbsp;Monica Aceti ,&nbsp;Carla Pedrazzani ,&nbsp;Maria C. Katapodi","doi":"10.1016/j.ssmqr.2024.100522","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>For unaffected women at high risk for developing breast cancer due to pathogenic variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA) genes, bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) is an alternative to intensive surveillance. RRM reduces breast cancer risk but may generate additional health and psychosocial issues, making the choice between surveillance and RRM complex and personal. This grounded theory study explores how unaffected women carrying BRCA pathogenic variants engage in a decision-making process leading to the choice of undergoing RRM. Narrative data were collected in Switzerland through biographical interviews with 38 unaffected women carrying BRCA pathogenic variants. Participants had either undergone RRM or were planning the surgery in the future. Findings indicate that the decision to undergo RRM was influenced by femininity and body image, current life engagements, anticipation of surgery risks and outcomes, perception and acceptance of cancer risk, surveillance experiences, attitudes of healthcare providers and family, and financial considerations. These factors interacted, creating contradictions that made decision-making challenging. To navigate this uncertainty, women progressively built their decision through a triple process of making sense: framing RRM as an obligated, empowering and mundane choice. This sense-making process is described as a process of legitimation, through which women decide to undergo RRM and integrate it into their life trajectory, ensuring its acceptability for themselves and their social circles. The discussion provides insights into the legitimation process as a heuristic tool for exploring crucial choices in uncertainty and offers implications for healthcare providers assisting individuals in complex decision-making processes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74862,"journal":{"name":"SSM. Qualitative research in health","volume":"7 ","pages":"Article 100522"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SSM. Qualitative research in health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667321524001318","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

For unaffected women at high risk for developing breast cancer due to pathogenic variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA) genes, bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) is an alternative to intensive surveillance. RRM reduces breast cancer risk but may generate additional health and psychosocial issues, making the choice between surveillance and RRM complex and personal. This grounded theory study explores how unaffected women carrying BRCA pathogenic variants engage in a decision-making process leading to the choice of undergoing RRM. Narrative data were collected in Switzerland through biographical interviews with 38 unaffected women carrying BRCA pathogenic variants. Participants had either undergone RRM or were planning the surgery in the future. Findings indicate that the decision to undergo RRM was influenced by femininity and body image, current life engagements, anticipation of surgery risks and outcomes, perception and acceptance of cancer risk, surveillance experiences, attitudes of healthcare providers and family, and financial considerations. These factors interacted, creating contradictions that made decision-making challenging. To navigate this uncertainty, women progressively built their decision through a triple process of making sense: framing RRM as an obligated, empowering and mundane choice. This sense-making process is described as a process of legitimation, through which women decide to undergo RRM and integrate it into their life trajectory, ensuring its acceptability for themselves and their social circles. The discussion provides insights into the legitimation process as a heuristic tool for exploring crucial choices in uncertainty and offers implications for healthcare providers assisting individuals in complex decision-making processes.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
163 days
期刊最新文献
The sociodynamics of chemsex: Stakeholders’ perspectives in France - Results from the ANRS-PaacX study Matrones as accompagnateurs: A model for accompaniment Anticipatory moral distress in machine learning-based clinical decision support tool development: A qualitative analysis “This year is not about carrying the heaviest burden”- a qualitative study on Black women’s postpartum experiences Why ‘inclusive policymaking’ is needed during crises: COVID-19 and social divisions in Austria
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1