Disparities in Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Modified Framework for Advancing Research Toward Intervention

Background As the United States' population diversifies, eliminating disparities in health and healthcare has become increasingly important across all disciplines of medicine, including plastic and reconstructive surgery. This is evidenced by the growing body of literature in recent years focusing on disparities in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. No study to date has evaluated whether this research is progressing appropriately to promote tangible evidence-based interventions to reduce these disparities. Methods A systematic literature review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines was performed to identify studies focusing on disparities in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. A previously established public health framework for advancing health disparities research was used to inform analysis of the quality and progression of the included studies. This triphasic framework categorizes disparities research as follows: detecting (identifies and measures disparities in vulnerable populations), understanding (establishes determinants of disparities), or reducing (proposes and evaluates interventions for eliminating disparities). Results Ninety-five studies were identified between 1979 and 2016, with 61 (64.2%) published after 2010. The majority of studies (51.6%) were retrospective cohort or case-control studies (American Society of Plastic Surgery level III evidence). Fifty-eight (63.7%), 31 (34.1%), and 2 (2.2%) studies provided detecting-, understanding- and reducing-phase disparities research, respectively. Non–plastic and reconstructive surgery journals accounted for 70.5% of all articles and for most higher phase research articles, publishing 83.9% and 100% of second and third phase studies, respectively. Disparity categories investigated included race/ethnicity, age, income, insurance status/type, geography, and education level, with race/ethnicity being the most common (73.7%). The most commonly measured outcome was percent of subpopulation receiving reconstruction (63, 66.3%), followed by reconstruction type (14, 16.7%). Patient-, provider-, system-, and research-level factors were all identified as potential targets for interventions to reduce disparities. Conclusions Despite a recent increase in literature focusing on postmastectomy breast reconstruction disparities, the majority focuses on identifying vulnerable populations with inadequate progression to second (understanding) and third (reducing) phases. Increasing research funding, availability of language-concordant and culturally concordant educational materials, and advocacy and sociopolitical awareness within the plastic surgery community is necessary to advance research on postmastectomy breast reconstruction and, ultimately, eliminate it.