Factors impacting informed consent in cosmetic breast augmentation
Stephen Whyte,
Laura Bray,
Martin Brumpton,
Ho Fai Chan,
Tim S. Peltz,
Manisha Tamar,
Uwe Dulleck,
Dietmar W. Hutmacher
Affiliations
Stephen Whyte
School of Economics and Finance, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), 2 George St, Brisbane, QLD, 4001, Australia; Centre for Behavioural Economics, Society & Technology (BEST), Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, 4001, Australia; Centre in Regenerative Medicine, Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), 60 Musk Avenue, Kelvin Grove, QLD, 4059, Australia; ARC Training Centre for Cell and Tissue Engineering Technologies, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, 4059, Australia; Corresponding author. School of Economics and Finance, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), 2 George St, Brisbane, QLD, 4001, Australia.
Laura Bray
Centre for Behavioural Economics, Society & Technology (BEST), Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, 4001, Australia; ARC Training Centre for Cell and Tissue Engineering Technologies, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, 4059, Australia; School of Mechanical, Medical and Process Engineering, Science and Engineering Faculty, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), 2 George St, Brisbane, QLD, 4001, Australia
Martin Brumpton
Centre for Behavioural Economics, Society & Technology (BEST), Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, 4001, Australia; Behavioural Economics Team of the Australian Government (BETA), Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet, Canberra, Australia
Ho Fai Chan
School of Economics and Finance, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), 2 George St, Brisbane, QLD, 4001, Australia; Centre for Behavioural Economics, Society & Technology (BEST), Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, 4001, Australia
Tim S. Peltz
Surgical and Orthopaedic Research Laboratories, Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
Manisha Tamar
Queensland University of Technology (QUT), 2 George St, Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia; Centre for Behavioural Economics, Society & Technology (BEST), Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, 4001, Australia
Uwe Dulleck
School of Economics and Finance, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), 2 George St, Brisbane, QLD, 4001, Australia; Centre for Behavioural Economics, Society & Technology (BEST), Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, 4001, Australia; ARC Training Centre for Cell and Tissue Engineering Technologies, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, 4059, Australia
Dietmar W. Hutmacher
Centre for Behavioural Economics, Society & Technology (BEST), Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, 4001, Australia; ARC Training Centre in Additive Biomanufacturing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, 4059, Australia; ARC Training Centre for Multiscale 3D Imaging, Modelling and Manufacturing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, 4059, Australia
Background: For women who undergo cosmetic breast augmentation, their post-operative risk assessment may not match their pre-operative understanding of the involved risks and likelihood of revision surgeries. This may be due to the potential issues surrounding whether patients are being fully informed about all possible risks and related financial implications during the consent phases of patient/doctor consultation. Methods: To explore comprehension, risk preference, and perceptions of breast augmentation procedure, we conducted a recorded online experiment with 178 women (18–40 years) who received varying amounts of risk-related information from two experienced breast surgeons in a hypothetical first consultation scenario. Results: We find patient's age, self-rated health, income, education level, and openness to experience to be significant factors impacting initial breast augmentation risk preferences (before receiving any risk information). Further, more emotionally stable patients perceived greater breast augmentation risks, were less likely to recommend breast augmentation, and were more likely to acknowledge the likelihood for future revision surgery. After providing women with risk-related information we find increases in risk assessment in all treatment conditions, and that increased amounts of risk information do decrease women's willingness to recommend breast augmentation. But that increased risk information does not appear to increase women's assessment of the likelihood of future revision surgery. Finally, we find some participant individual differences (such as education level, having children, conscientiousness and emotional stability) appear to impact risk assessment post receiving risk information. Conclusion: Continuous improvement of the informed consent consultation process is vital to optimising patient outcomes efficiently and cost-effectively. Greater acknowledgement and emphasis on disclosure of related risks and financial burden when complications arise is also important. As such, future behavioural research is warranted into the factors impacting women's understanding both prior to and across the BA informed consent process.
