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":"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。","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":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}","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}
Patient reported outcome and experience measures among patients with central venous access devices: a systematic review.
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.
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.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
