Qualitative insights into patient and carer perspectives of malignant pleural effusion management: an embedded study within the TACTIC trial.

IF 4 3区 医学 Q1 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Alice Milne, Alexandra Dipper, Rahul Bhatnagar, Anand Sundaralingam, Najib M Rahman, Nick Maskell, Andrew J Moore
{"title":"Qualitative insights into patient and carer perspectives of malignant pleural effusion management: an embedded study within the TACTIC trial.","authors":"Alice Milne, Alexandra Dipper, Rahul Bhatnagar, Anand Sundaralingam, Najib M Rahman, Nick Maskell, Andrew J Moore","doi":"10.1136/bmjresp-2026-004098","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Malignant pleural effusion (MPE) is a condition characterised by excessive fluid build-up in the pleural cavity caused by cancer. Management options focus on drainage of fluid from the pleural cavity with a common aim of minimising symptoms and improving quality of life. Definitive pleural intervention is recommended for most patients with MPE to achieve longer-term symptom control. A patient-centred approach is also emphasised. However, little is known about the patient and carer experiences of MPE management. Therefore, this study sought to examine patient and carer experiences of differing procedural interventions within a trial setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with MPE and their carers who were taking part in the TACTIC trial in hospitals across the UK were invited to take part in a one-off interview. Thirty-two participants were recruited, and 22 semistructured interviews were conducted. Interview formats were either patient only, carer only or patient and carer dyad interviews. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a generalised thematic analysis approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Initial findings demonstrated that patients and carers were generally satisfied with the MPE management and care received. No significant differences in acceptability were found between the two management strategies. Further analysis led to the development of four overarching themes: experiences of MPE beyond the trial, experiences of pain, preferences in MPE care and measuring MPE: rethinking patient relevance. These findings underscore the importance of greater consideration of pain management during MPE care, as well as improved communication and information prior to procedures.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients and carers found the TACTIC combined procedure tolerable and acceptable. Echoing the growing evidence of research in this field, authors emphasise the importance of outcome measure selection in MPE trials and suggest a need for a Core Outcome Set to establish fundamental priorities in MPE management.</p>","PeriodicalId":9048,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Respiratory Research","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13409097/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Respiratory Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2026-004098","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Malignant pleural effusion (MPE) is a condition characterised by excessive fluid build-up in the pleural cavity caused by cancer. Management options focus on drainage of fluid from the pleural cavity with a common aim of minimising symptoms and improving quality of life. Definitive pleural intervention is recommended for most patients with MPE to achieve longer-term symptom control. A patient-centred approach is also emphasised. However, little is known about the patient and carer experiences of MPE management. Therefore, this study sought to examine patient and carer experiences of differing procedural interventions within a trial setting.

Methods: Patients with MPE and their carers who were taking part in the TACTIC trial in hospitals across the UK were invited to take part in a one-off interview. Thirty-two participants were recruited, and 22 semistructured interviews were conducted. Interview formats were either patient only, carer only or patient and carer dyad interviews. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a generalised thematic analysis approach.

Results: Initial findings demonstrated that patients and carers were generally satisfied with the MPE management and care received. No significant differences in acceptability were found between the two management strategies. Further analysis led to the development of four overarching themes: experiences of MPE beyond the trial, experiences of pain, preferences in MPE care and measuring MPE: rethinking patient relevance. These findings underscore the importance of greater consideration of pain management during MPE care, as well as improved communication and information prior to procedures.

Conclusion: Patients and carers found the TACTIC combined procedure tolerable and acceptable. Echoing the growing evidence of research in this field, authors emphasise the importance of outcome measure selection in MPE trials and suggest a need for a Core Outcome Set to establish fundamental priorities in MPE management.

定性洞察恶性胸腔积液管理的患者和护理人员的观点:在战术试验中的嵌入研究。
背景:恶性胸腔积液(MPE)是一种以癌症引起的胸腔积液过多为特征的疾病。治疗方案侧重于从胸膜腔引流液体,其共同目标是尽量减少症状和改善生活质量。大多数MPE患者建议采用最终胸膜介入治疗,以达到较长期的症状控制。还强调以患者为中心的方法。然而,关于MPE管理的患者和护理人员经验知之甚少。因此,本研究试图在试验环境中检查不同程序干预的患者和护理人员经验。方法:在英国各医院参加战术试验的MPE患者及其护理人员被邀请参加一次性访谈。招募了32名参与者,进行了22次半结构化访谈。面试形式分为病人面试、照顾者面试或病人和照顾者面试。访谈录音,逐字抄录,并采用一般性专题分析方法进行分析。结果:初步调查结果表明,患者和护理人员对MPE的管理和护理普遍满意。两种管理策略在可接受性上没有显著差异。进一步的分析导致了四个总体主题的发展:试验后的MPE体验、疼痛体验、MPE护理偏好和测量MPE:重新思考患者相关性。这些发现强调了在MPE护理中更多考虑疼痛管理的重要性,以及在手术前改善沟通和信息。结论:患者和护理人员认为策略联合手术是可以忍受和接受的。与该领域越来越多的研究证据相呼应,作者强调了MPE试验中结果测量选择的重要性,并建议需要一个核心结果集来确定MPE管理的基本优先事项。
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
BMJ Open Respiratory Research
BMJ Open Respiratory Research RESPIRATORY SYSTEM-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
2.40%
发文量
95
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Open Respiratory Research is a peer-reviewed, open access journal publishing respiratory and critical care medicine. It is the sister journal to Thorax and co-owned by the British Thoracic Society and BMJ. The journal focuses on robustness of methodology and scientific rigour with less emphasis on novelty or perceived impact. BMJ Open Respiratory Research operates a rapid review process, with continuous publication online, ensuring timely, up-to-date research is available worldwide. The journal publishes review articles and all research study types: Basic science including laboratory based experiments and animal models, Pilot studies or proof of concept, Observational studies, Study protocols, Registries, Clinical trials from phase I to multicentre randomised clinical trials, Systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书