Women’s perceptions of hysterectomy and alternative surgical treatments for benign pelvic pathologies: A Literature Review

Olufemi Babalola, Jason Roberts, V. Price
{"title":"Women’s perceptions of hysterectomy and alternative surgical treatments for benign pelvic pathologies: A Literature Review","authors":"Olufemi Babalola, Jason Roberts, V. Price","doi":"10.5750/EJPCH.V7I2.1650","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The evolving landscape of new technologies offering minimally invasive options for the treatment of benign pelvic diseases present with varying effectiveness and safety profiles. This raises questions regarding how patients make treatment decisions. Patients may perceive risk or benefits of a device/treatment differently than physicians or regulators responsible for determining whether a new device can be marketed. Methods: We reviewed publications in PubMed investigating patients’ perceptions of surgical treatments for benign pelvic pathology, including perceived benefits and risks. In addition, we explored the social and cultural factors influencing these perceptions and treatment decisions. Results: We included 16 studies in our literature review. Factors which were identified to influence women’s perceptions include:  symptom relief; surgical complications and recovery times; impact on periods; child-bearing capacity; femininity; sexual desire and sexual dysfunction; cosmetic effects; emotional effects and risk of cancer. Our review revealed some heterogeneity in patients’ perspectives on factors (including benefits and risks) associated with surgical treatments for benign pelvic pathology. Women’s intrinsic factors including age, race, sexuality and child-bearing status may influence how they perceive the potential effects of their surgical options and influence their treatment decision. Conclusions: It is important to understand the trade-offs patients make as they consider competing surgical treatment options. Patient preference information from future patient studies could quantify patient perspective thereby providing additional information to patients, clinicians, current and prospective device developers.  In addition, it may be used by regulators in their evaluation of surgical devices for the treatment of benign pelvic disease.","PeriodicalId":72966,"journal":{"name":"European journal for person centered healthcare","volume":"48 1","pages":"296-306"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal for person centered healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5750/EJPCH.V7I2.1650","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: The evolving landscape of new technologies offering minimally invasive options for the treatment of benign pelvic diseases present with varying effectiveness and safety profiles. This raises questions regarding how patients make treatment decisions. Patients may perceive risk or benefits of a device/treatment differently than physicians or regulators responsible for determining whether a new device can be marketed. Methods: We reviewed publications in PubMed investigating patients’ perceptions of surgical treatments for benign pelvic pathology, including perceived benefits and risks. In addition, we explored the social and cultural factors influencing these perceptions and treatment decisions. Results: We included 16 studies in our literature review. Factors which were identified to influence women’s perceptions include:  symptom relief; surgical complications and recovery times; impact on periods; child-bearing capacity; femininity; sexual desire and sexual dysfunction; cosmetic effects; emotional effects and risk of cancer. Our review revealed some heterogeneity in patients’ perspectives on factors (including benefits and risks) associated with surgical treatments for benign pelvic pathology. Women’s intrinsic factors including age, race, sexuality and child-bearing status may influence how they perceive the potential effects of their surgical options and influence their treatment decision. Conclusions: It is important to understand the trade-offs patients make as they consider competing surgical treatment options. Patient preference information from future patient studies could quantify patient perspective thereby providing additional information to patients, clinicians, current and prospective device developers.  In addition, it may be used by regulators in their evaluation of surgical devices for the treatment of benign pelvic disease.
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
女性对良性盆腔病变子宫切除术和替代手术治疗的看法:文献综述
背景:不断发展的新技术为良性盆腔疾病的治疗提供了微创选择,其有效性和安全性各不相同。这就提出了关于患者如何做出治疗决定的问题。患者对器械/治疗的风险或益处的认识可能与负责决定新器械是否可以上市的医生或监管机构不同。方法:我们回顾了PubMed上的出版物,调查了患者对良性盆腔病理手术治疗的看法,包括感知的益处和风险。此外,我们探讨了影响这些观念和治疗决策的社会和文化因素。结果:我们的文献综述纳入了16项研究。确定的影响妇女观念的因素包括:症状缓解;手术并发症及恢复时间;对时期的影响;生育能力;女性气质;性欲与性功能障碍;美容效果;情绪影响和癌症风险。我们的综述揭示了患者对良性盆腔病理手术治疗相关因素(包括获益和风险)的看法存在一些异质性。妇女的内在因素,包括年龄、种族、性别和生育状况,可能影响她们如何看待手术选择的潜在影响,并影响她们的治疗决定。结论:了解患者在考虑竞争性手术治疗方案时所做的权衡是很重要的。来自未来患者研究的患者偏好信息可以量化患者的观点,从而为患者、临床医生、当前和未来的设备开发商提供额外的信息。此外,它可以被监管机构用于评估用于治疗良性盆腔疾病的手术装置。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The ethical and epistemic roles of narrative in person-centred healthcare Person-Centred Healthcare versus Patient Centricity - what is the difference and how are pharmaceutical companies aiming to secure internal representation of the patient voice? Moving past phronesis: clinical reasoning in person-centered care Persons over models: shared decision-making for person-centered medicine lifestyle and degeneracy
×
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