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

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Emily N Larsen, Claire M Rickard, Nicole Marsh, Mary Fenn, Rebecca S Paterson, Amanda J Ullman, Raymond J Chan, Vineet Chopra, Doreen Tapsall, Amanda Corley, Nicole Gavin, Brighid Scanlon, Joshua Byrnes
{"title":"Patient reported outcome and experience measures among patients with central venous access devices: a systematic review.","authors":"Emily N Larsen, Claire M Rickard, Nicole Marsh, Mary Fenn, Rebecca S Paterson, Amanda J Ullman, Raymond J Chan, Vineet Chopra, Doreen Tapsall, Amanda Corley, Nicole Gavin, Brighid Scanlon, Joshua Byrnes","doi":"10.1007/s00520-024-08961-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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').</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>Prospectively submitted to the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) 05 July 2020.</p>","PeriodicalId":22046,"journal":{"name":"Supportive Care in Cancer","volume":"32 12","pages":"775"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Supportive Care in Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-024-08961-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

使用中心静脉通路装置的患者报告结果和体验测量:系统综述。
目的:接受实体瘤和血液恶性肿瘤治疗的患者以及其他急性和慢性疾病患者高度依赖中心静脉通路装置(CVADs)进行化疗和其他复杂治疗;因此,CVADs 可对患者的健康结果和体验产生有意义的影响。本系统性综述旨在识别和评价与 CVAD 相关的患者报告结果测量(PROM)和患者报告体验测量(PREM)工具:首先对健康数据库进行电子检索(2022 年 4 月),然后进行系统性综述。如果研究使用自我报告工具(调查问卷)来定量测量患者报告的与 CVADs 相关的结果和经验(仅限英语),则符合条件。两位作者使用试用版数据提取工具,独立确定需要进行全面审查、数据提取和质量评估的研究。结果:结果:检索共获得 875 篇论文,其中 41 篇符合纳入标准,无排除标准。其中,31 篇报告了专门设计的问卷调查结果;另外 6 篇报告了用于 CVAD 的通用测量结果;4 篇既包括专门设计的测量结果,也包括通用测量结果。总体研究质量较低;只有两项研究同时评估了内容效度和内部一致性。总共提取了 155 个独特的 PROM 项目(涉及 27 项研究),包括五个领域(如 "日常生活工具性活动"、"疼痛和不适")。同样,184 个独特的 PREMs(来自 31 项研究)包括 13 个领域(如 "共同决策";"教育"):结论:有关 CVAD 的研究和质量改进研究越来越多地采用 PROM 和 PREM。然而,这些测量方法大多是为特定目的而设计的,其有效性和可靠性尚未得到充分证实:前瞻性提交至国际系统性综述前瞻性注册(PROSPERO),2020 年 7 月 5 日。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Supportive Care in Cancer
Supportive Care in Cancer 医学-康复医学
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
9.70%
发文量
751
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Supportive Care in Cancer provides members of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) and all other interested individuals, groups and institutions with the most recent scientific and social information on all aspects of supportive care in cancer patients. It covers primarily medical, technical and surgical topics concerning supportive therapy and care which may supplement or substitute basic cancer treatment at all stages of the disease. Nursing, rehabilitative, psychosocial and spiritual issues of support are also included.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信