Suppr超能文献

三种不同中心静脉置管设备用于全身抗癌治疗的患者接受度:一项定性研究。

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

机构信息

School of Social Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.

Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2019 Jul 9;9(7):e026077. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026077.

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

ISRCTN44504648.

摘要

目的

三种中心静脉通路装置(CVAD)常用于静脉全身抗癌治疗(SACT)的给药:外周静脉置入中心静脉导管(PICC)、皮下隧道式中央导管(Hickman 型装置)和完全可植入胸壁端口(Port)。这项定性研究嵌套在一项多中心随机对照试验中,旨在探讨患者对三种装置的可接受性和体验。

设计

进行了 8 次焦点小组讨论,对讨论进行了录音、转录和主题分析。

地点

英国的 6 家门诊癌症治疗中心。

参与者

42 名患者(20 名女性,平均年龄 61.7 岁),他们参加了或正在参加更广泛的试验。

干预措施

作为更大规模随机对照试验的一部分,参与者被随机分配三种 CVAD 之一用于 SACT 的给药。

结果

所有三种装置的态度均为积极的,患者将其 CVAD 视为治疗和康复的一部分。PICC 和 Hickman 患者倾向于将其装置与外周插管进行有利比较。相比之下,Port 患者始终将其装置与 PICC 和 Hickman 进行比较,强调 Port 的优越性。Port 被认为具有独特的心理益处,包括在人际关系中更自由和更少的干扰感。

结论

患者的经验和偏好尚未系统地用于为 CVAD 的可用性和选择提供信息,以指导政策和实践。我们的研究确定了患者对装置的偏好模式,倾向于 Port,但并非普遍如此。本研究的结果可以改善对患者的支持,并为将患者观点纳入决策过程提供更大的空间。

试验注册号

ISRCTN44504648。

相似文献

2
Venous access devices for the delivery of long-term chemotherapy: the CAVA three-arm RCT.
Health Technol Assess. 2021 Jul;25(47):1-126. doi: 10.3310/hta25470.
3
Central venous access devices for the delivery of systemic anticancer therapy (CAVA): a randomised controlled trial.
Lancet. 2021 Jul 31;398(10298):403-415. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00766-2. Epub 2021 Jul 21.
5
Exploring attitudes towards a randomised controlled trial of venous access devices – a nested pre-trial qualitative study.
J Vasc Access. 2015 Sep-Oct;16(5):407-12. doi: 10.5301/jva.5000447. Epub 2015 Aug 31.
7
A comparison of infections and complications in central venous catheters in adults with solid tumours.
J Vasc Access. 2015 Jan-Feb;16(1):38-41. doi: 10.5301/jva.5000300. Epub 2014 Sep 1.
8
Utilization and Complications of Central Venous Access Devices in Oncology Patients.
Curr Oncol. 2021 Jan 10;28(1):367-377. doi: 10.3390/curroncol28010039.
10
Infectious morbidity associated with long-term use of venous access devices in patients with cancer.
Ann Intern Med. 1993 Dec 15;119(12):1168-74. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-119-12-199312150-00003.

引用本文的文献

1
The experiences of adolescents living with a central venous access device: A qualitative analysis.
Int J Nurs Stud Adv. 2022 Oct 11;4:100106. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnsa.2022.100106. eCollection 2022 Dec.
4
Beyond clinical and cost-effectiveness: The contribution of qualitative research to health technology assessment.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2023 Apr 24;39(1):e23. doi: 10.1017/S0266462323000211.
6
Factors influencing the optimal selection of central venous access devices: A qualitative study of health care team members' perspectives.
Int J Nurs Sci. 2022 Sep 16;9(4):445-452. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnss.2022.09.006. eCollection 2022 Oct.
7
Adult oncology patients' experiences of living with a central venous catheter: a systematic review and meta-synthesis.
Support Care Cancer. 2022 May;30(5):3773-3791. doi: 10.1007/s00520-022-06819-8. Epub 2022 Jan 14.

本文引用的文献

1
Living with a peripherally inserted central catheter: the perspective of cancer outpatients-a qualitative study.
Support Care Cancer. 2018 Feb;26(2):441-449. doi: 10.1007/s00520-017-3815-4. Epub 2017 Jul 13.
2
Proactive PICC placement: evaluating the patient experience.
Br J Nurs. 2016;25(8):S4-14. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2016.25.8.S4.
4
Exploring attitudes towards a randomised controlled trial of venous access devices – a nested pre-trial qualitative study.
J Vasc Access. 2015 Sep-Oct;16(5):407-12. doi: 10.5301/jva.5000447. Epub 2015 Aug 31.
5
Venous access: the patient experience.
Support Care Cancer. 2016 Mar;24(3):1181-7. doi: 10.1007/s00520-015-2900-9. Epub 2015 Aug 18.
6
Exploring patient involvement in decision making for vascular procedures.
J Vasc Surg. 2015 Oct;62(4):1032-1039.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2015.04.443. Epub 2015 Jul 2.
7
The patient experience of a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC): A qualitative descriptive study.
Contemp Nurse. 2014;48(1):26-35. doi: 10.1080/10376178.2014.11081923. Epub 2014 Jul 19.
10
Percutaneous image-guided implantation of totally implantable venous access ports in the forearm or the chest? A patients' point of view.
Support Care Cancer. 2013 Feb;21(2):505-10. doi: 10.1007/s00520-012-1544-2. Epub 2012 Jul 25.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验