Patient reported outcome and experience measures among patients with central venous access devices: a systematic review

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
File version

Accepted Manuscript (AM)

Author(s)
Larsen, Emily N
Rickard, Claire M
Marsh, Nicole
Fenn, Mary
Paterson, Rebecca S
Ullman, Amanda J
Chan, Raymond J
Chopra, Vineet
Tapsall, Doreen
Corley, Amanda
Gavin, Nicole
Scanlon, Brighid
Byrnes, Joshua
Primary Supervisor
Other Supervisors
Editor(s)
Date
2024
Size
File type(s)
Location
License
Abstract

Purpose Patients receiving treatment for solid tumours and haematological malignancies, among other acute and chronic health conditions, are highly dependent upon central venous access devices (CVADs) for administering chemotherapy and other complex therapies; thus, CVADs can meaningfully impact their health outcomes and experiences. This systematic review aimed to identify and critique patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) and patient-reported experience measure (PREM) instruments related to CVADs.

Methods A systematic review was undertaken, commencing with an electronic search of health databases (April 2022). Studies were eligible if they used a self-reporting instrument (questionnaire) to quantitatively measure patient-reported outcomes and experiences related to CVADs (English only). Using a piloted data-extraction tool, two authors independently identified studies for full review, data extraction, and quality assessment. Data were synthesised narratively.

Results The search yielded 875 titles, of which 41 met the inclusion and no exclusion criteria. Of these, 31 reported results of purpose-built questionnaires; a further six reported results of generic measures used for CVADs; four included both purpose-built and generic measures. Overall study quality was low; only two studies evaluated both content validity and internal consistency. In total, 155 unique PROM items (across 27 studies) were extracted which encompassed five domains (e.g., ‘Instrumental activities of daily living’; ‘Pain and discomfort’). Similarly, 184 unique PREMs (from 31 studies) included 13 domains (e.g., ‘Shared decision-making’; ‘Education’).

Conclusion Increasingly, research and quality improvement studies about CVADs are incorporating PROM and PREM. These measures are largely purpose-built, however, and their validity and reliability have not been sufficiently established for use.

Review registration Prospectively submitted to the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) 05 July 2020.

Journal Title

Supportive Care in Cancer

Conference Title
Book Title
Edition
Volume

32

Issue

12

Thesis Type
Degree Program
School
Publisher link
Patent number
Funder(s)
Grant identifier(s)
Rights Statement
Rights Statement

This work is covered by copyright. You must assume that re-use is limited to personal use and that permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the document is available under a specified licence, refer to the licence for details of permitted re-use. If you believe that this work infringes copyright please make a copyright takedown request using the form at https://www.griffith.edu.au/copyright-matters.

Item Access Status
Note
Access the data
Related item(s)
Subject

Oncology and carcinogenesis

Biomedical and clinical sciences

Health sciences

Psychology

Persistent link to this record
Citation

Larsen, EN; Rickard, CM; Marsh, N; Fenn, M; Paterson, RS; Ullman, AJ; Chan, RJ; Chopra, V; Tapsall, D; Corley, A; Gavin, N; Scanlon, B; Byrnes, J, Patient reported outcome and experience measures among patients with central venous access devices: a systematic review, Supportive Care in Cancer, 2024, 32 (12), pp. 775

Collections