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

Author:

Ryan CaoimheORCID,Hesselgreaves Hannah,Wu Olivia,Moss Jonathan,Paul James,Dixon-Hughes Judith,Germeni Evi

Abstract

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 NCT44504648

Funder

Health Technology Assessment Programme

Publisher

BMJ

Subject

General Medicine

Reference23 articles.

1. Venous access: the patient experience;Robinson-Reilly;Support Care Cancer,2016

2. Peripherally inserted central venous catheters: factors affecting patient satisfaction.

3. Proactive PICC placement: evaluating the patient experience;Harrold;Br J Nurs,2016

4. More benefits than problems;Källenius Edström;Home Health Care Manag Pract,2016

5. An analysis of long-term venous access catheters in cancer patients:experience from a tertiary care centre in India;Shukla;J Postgrad Med,2002

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3