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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |