Reconstructive Breast Surgery: Referring Physician Knowledge and Learning Needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the positive impact that reconstructive breast surgery can have on a woman's quality of life, the percentage of eligible candidates that have this procedure remains surprisingly low. The authors hypothesized that this may be attributable to inadequate knowledge, inadequate information, and/or misinformation available to physicians caring for these patients. A needs assessment of primary care physicians, general surgeons, oncologists, and plastic surgeons was conducted to determine referring physicians' current level of knowledge of reconstructive breast surgery and to discover potential learning needs. This comprised a survey, focus groups, and individual interviews. Referring physicians rated their own knowledge of reconstructive breast surgery as low. Plastic surgeons rated their referring physicians' knowledge as even lower. Specific learning needs were identified, as large discrepancies between referring physicians' self-reported knowledge of individual breast reconstruction topics and their own opinion of their relevance were revealed. In addition, despite evidence to the contrary, more than one-third of referring physicians indicated a belief that a breast reconstruction delayed the detection of local cancer recurrence and adversely interfered with adjuvant oncologic therapy. This lack of knowledge and misinformation may be negatively affecting patient referrals to plastic surgeons, as more than one-third of referring physicians and 90 percent of plastic surgeons believed that eligible candidates were not being offered referrals because of inadequate referring physician knowledge of this topic. Furthermore, patients older than 49 years were not being referred despite the fact that plastic surgeons would consider these patients as potential surgical candidates. Referring physician gender affected both referral patterns and perceived importance of reconstructive breast surgery. Finally, personal beliefs and past experiences played a role both in physicians' decisions to refer patients and in patients' decisions to have breast reconstructions. These deficiencies in information, knowledge, and learning needs should be addressed by educational interventions during residency training and through continuing education endeavors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".