Cargando…

Patient acceptability of three different central venous access devices for the delivery of systemic anticancer therapy: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE: Three types of central venous access devices (CVADs) are routinely used in the delivery of intravenous systemic anticancer therapy (SACT): peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), subcutaneously tunnelled central catheters (Hickman-type devices) and totally implantable chest wall...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ryan, Caoimhe, Hesselgreaves, Hannah, Wu, Olivia, Moss, Jonathan, Paul, James, Dixon-Hughes, Judith, Germeni, Evi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6624052/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31292176
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026077
_version_ 1783434198712844288
author Ryan, Caoimhe
Hesselgreaves, Hannah
Wu, Olivia
Moss, Jonathan
Paul, James
Dixon-Hughes, Judith
Germeni, Evi
author_facet Ryan, Caoimhe
Hesselgreaves, Hannah
Wu, Olivia
Moss, Jonathan
Paul, James
Dixon-Hughes, Judith
Germeni, Evi
author_sort Ryan, Caoimhe
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Three types of central venous access devices (CVADs) are routinely used in the delivery of intravenous systemic anticancer therapy (SACT): peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), subcutaneously tunnelled central catheters (Hickman-type devices) and totally implantable chest wall ports (Ports). This qualitative study, nested within a multicentre, randomised controlled trial, sought to explore patient acceptability and experiences of the three devices. DESIGN: Eight focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. SETTING: Six outpatient cancer treatment centres in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-two patients (20 female, mean age 61.7 years) who had taken part or were taking part in the broader trial. INTERVENTION: As part of the larger, randomised controlled trial, participants had been randomly assigned one of three CVADs for the administration of SACT. RESULTS: Attitudes towards all three devices were positive, with patients viewing their CVAD as part of their treatment and recovery. Participants with PICCs and Hickmans tended to compare their device favourably with peripheral cannulation. By comparison, participants with Ports consistently compared their device with PICCs and Hickmans, emphasising the perceived superiority of Ports. Ports were perceived to offer unique psychological benefits, including a greater sense of freedom and less intrusion in the context of personal relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Patient experiences and preferences have not been systematically used to inform policy and practice regarding CVAD availability and selection. Our research identified patterns of patient device preferences that favoured Ports, although this was not universal. Results of this study could improve support for patients and offer greater scope for incorporating patient perspectives into decision-making processes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN44504648.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6624052
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66240522019-07-28 Patient acceptability of three different central venous access devices for the delivery of systemic anticancer therapy: a qualitative study Ryan, Caoimhe Hesselgreaves, Hannah Wu, Olivia Moss, Jonathan Paul, James Dixon-Hughes, Judith Germeni, Evi BMJ Open Qualitative Research OBJECTIVE: Three types of central venous access devices (CVADs) are routinely used in the delivery of intravenous systemic anticancer therapy (SACT): peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), subcutaneously tunnelled central catheters (Hickman-type devices) and totally implantable chest wall ports (Ports). This qualitative study, nested within a multicentre, randomised controlled trial, sought to explore patient acceptability and experiences of the three devices. DESIGN: Eight focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. SETTING: Six outpatient cancer treatment centres in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-two patients (20 female, mean age 61.7 years) who had taken part or were taking part in the broader trial. INTERVENTION: As part of the larger, randomised controlled trial, participants had been randomly assigned one of three CVADs for the administration of SACT. RESULTS: Attitudes towards all three devices were positive, with patients viewing their CVAD as part of their treatment and recovery. Participants with PICCs and Hickmans tended to compare their device favourably with peripheral cannulation. By comparison, participants with Ports consistently compared their device with PICCs and Hickmans, emphasising the perceived superiority of Ports. Ports were perceived to offer unique psychological benefits, including a greater sense of freedom and less intrusion in the context of personal relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Patient experiences and preferences have not been systematically used to inform policy and practice regarding CVAD availability and selection. Our research identified patterns of patient device preferences that favoured Ports, although this was not universal. Results of this study could improve support for patients and offer greater scope for incorporating patient perspectives into decision-making processes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN44504648. BMJ Publishing Group 2019-07-09 /pmc/articles/PMC6624052/ /pubmed/31292176 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026077 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Qualitative Research
Ryan, Caoimhe
Hesselgreaves, Hannah
Wu, Olivia
Moss, Jonathan
Paul, James
Dixon-Hughes, Judith
Germeni, Evi
Patient acceptability of three different central venous access devices for the delivery of systemic anticancer therapy: a qualitative study
title Patient acceptability of three different central venous access devices for the delivery of systemic anticancer therapy: a qualitative study
title_full Patient acceptability of three different central venous access devices for the delivery of systemic anticancer therapy: a qualitative study
title_fullStr Patient acceptability of three different central venous access devices for the delivery of systemic anticancer therapy: a qualitative study
title_full_unstemmed Patient acceptability of three different central venous access devices for the delivery of systemic anticancer therapy: a qualitative study
title_short Patient acceptability of three different central venous access devices for the delivery of systemic anticancer therapy: a qualitative study
title_sort patient acceptability of three different central venous access devices for the delivery of systemic anticancer therapy: a qualitative study
topic Qualitative Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6624052/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31292176
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026077
work_keys_str_mv AT ryancaoimhe patientacceptabilityofthreedifferentcentralvenousaccessdevicesforthedeliveryofsystemicanticancertherapyaqualitativestudy
AT hesselgreaveshannah patientacceptabilityofthreedifferentcentralvenousaccessdevicesforthedeliveryofsystemicanticancertherapyaqualitativestudy
AT wuolivia patientacceptabilityofthreedifferentcentralvenousaccessdevicesforthedeliveryofsystemicanticancertherapyaqualitativestudy
AT mossjonathan patientacceptabilityofthreedifferentcentralvenousaccessdevicesforthedeliveryofsystemicanticancertherapyaqualitativestudy
AT pauljames patientacceptabilityofthreedifferentcentralvenousaccessdevicesforthedeliveryofsystemicanticancertherapyaqualitativestudy
AT dixonhughesjudith patientacceptabilityofthreedifferentcentralvenousaccessdevicesforthedeliveryofsystemicanticancertherapyaqualitativestudy
AT germenievi patientacceptabilityofthreedifferentcentralvenousaccessdevicesforthedeliveryofsystemicanticancertherapyaqualitativestudy