This pre-trial qualitative research study was carried out to explore patient and clinical staff attitudes to central venous access devices (CVADs). In addition, views about participation in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) were explored with the aim of maximising recruitment to an imminent RCT of three CVADs.
Methods
Three patient focus groups (each comprising three patients) and 23 interviews with clinical staff were conducted. Interviews and focus group discussions were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim, anonymised, uploaded to the QSR NVivo10 qualitative software programme and thematically analysed.
Results
Analysis of focus group interviews revealed the added challenges that a CVAD poses to patients with cancer. Four key themes emerged: continuity of daily life, pain and discomfort, stigma (a mark of disgrace associated with certain conditions) and self-preservation. The findings show the impact of a CVAD on patients’ ability to manage their condition. Clinical staff interviews highlighted several potential barriers to recruitment; a lack of equipoise (genuine clinical uncertainty as to which intervention is the most beneficial), concerns about the logistics of device insertion and a perceived requirement for education and training.
Conclusions
This qualitative study raises awareness of key areas of concern to patients who need a CVAD for chemotherapy delivery. It was identified that there is a need for clearer patient information around CVADs. Additionally it allows investigators to identify barriers to recruitment in a timely manner in order to minimise the potential for conflict between the roles of carer and researcher and consequently, maximise recruitment to the RCT.
GreenJ., ThorogoodN.Qualitative Methods for Health Research, 2nd edition. London: Sage; 2009.
2.
CraigP., DieppeP., MacintyreS., MichieS., NazarethI., PetticrewM.Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ.2008; 337: a1655.
3.
KulkarniS., WuO., KasthuriR., MossJ.G.Centrally inserted external catheters and totally implantable ports for the delivery of chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of device-related complications. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol.2014; 37 (4): 990–1008.
4.
Protocol 13PRT/7956: Cancer And Venous Access (CAVA): a randomised controlled trial with associated qualitative research of venous access devices for the delivery of long-term chemotherapy (ISCRTN No 44504648).The Lancet Protocol Reviews 13PRT-7956.http://www.thelancet.com/protocol-reviews/13PRT-7956
5.
WatsonJ.M., TorgersonD.J.Increasing recruitment to randomised trials: a review of randomised controlled trials. BMC Med Res Methodol.2006; 6 (1): 34.
6.
McDonaldA.M., KnightR.C., CampbellM.K.What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies. Trials.2006; 7 (1): 9.
7.
DonovanJ., MillsN., SmithM.Quality improvement report: improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study. BMJ.2002; 325 (7367): 766–770.
8.
HamiltonD.W., de SalisI., DonovanJ.L., BirchallM.The recruitment of patients to trials in head and neck cancer: a qualitative study of the EaStER trial of treatments for early laryngeal cancer. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol.2013; 270 (8): 2333–2337.
9.
ParamasivanS., HuddartR., HallE., LewisR., BirtleA., DonovanJ.L.Key issues in recruitment to randomised controlled trials with very different interventions: a qualitative investigation of recruitment to the SPARE trial (CRUK/07/011). Trials.2011; 12 (1): 78.
10.
MossJ., RitchieM., WuO., PaulJ., McCartneyE., DixonJ.Randomised trial comparing Hickman lines with ports for chemotherapy: a pilot study to inform a larger trial. J Vasc Access.2014; 15 (3): 229.
11.
SilvermanD.Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction: 2nd edition. London: Sage; 2001.
12.
HorattasM.C., TrupianoJ., HopkinsS., PasiniD., MartinoC., MurtyA.Changing concepts in long-term central venous access: catheter selection and cost savings. Am J Infect Control.2001; 29 (1): 32–40.
13.
FreytesC.O.Vascular access problems revisited: the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) experience. Support Care Cancer.1998; 6 (1): 13–19.
14.
GallieniM., PittirutiM., BiffiR.Vascular access in oncology patients. CA Cancer J Clin.2008; 58 (6): 323–346.
15.
JenkinsV., FarewellD., BattL.The attitudes of 1066 patients with cancer towards participation in randomised clinical trials. Br J Cancer.2010; 103 (12): 1801–1807.
16.
AveryK.N., BlazebyJ.M., LaneJ.A., NealD.E., HamdyF.C., DonovanJ.L.Decision-making about PSA testing and prostate biopsies: a qualitative study embedded in a primary care randomised trial. Eur Urol.2008; 53 (6): 1186–1193.
17.
ForbesL.J., NichollsC.M., LinsellL., GrahamJ., TompkinsC., RamirezA.J.Involving users in the design of a randomised controlled trial of an intervention to promote early presentation in breast cancer: qualitative study. BMC Med Res Methodol.2010; 10 (1): 110.
18.
GoossensE., GoossensG.A., StasM., JanssensC., JérômeM., MoonsP.Sensory perceptions of patients with cancer undergoing surgical insertion of a totally implantable venous access device: a qualitative, exploratory study. Oncol Nurs Forum.2011; 38 (1): E20–E26.
19.
OakleyC., WrightE., ReamE.The experiences of patients and nurses with a nurse-led peripherally inserted central venous catheter line service. Eur J Oncol Nurs.2000; 4 (4): 207–208.
20.
MøllerT., AdamsenL.Hematologic patients’ clinical and psychosocial experiences with implanted long-term central venous catheter: self-management versus professionally controlled care. Cancer Nurs.2010; 33 (6): 426–435.
21.
BorstC.G., de KruifA.T., van DamF.S., de GraafP.W.Totally implantable venous access ports—the patients’ point of view. A quality control study. Cancer Nurs.1992; 15 (5): 378–381.
22.
MartinsF.T.M., de CarvalhoE.C.[Patients’ perception regarding the use of a long-term catheter]. Rev Esc Enferm USP.2008; 42 (3): 526–531.
23.
MolloyD., SmithL.N., AitchisonT.Cytotoxic chemotherapy for incurable colorectal cancer: living with a PICC-line. J Clin Nurs.2008; 17 (18): 2398–2407.
24.
MacklinD., CherneckyC., NugentK., WallerJ.A collaborative approach to improving patient care associated with vascular access devices. J Vasc Access Devices.2003; 8 (2): 8–13.
BehrendtC., GölzT., RoeslerC., BertzH., WünschA.What do our patients understand about their trial participation? Assessing patients’ understanding of their informed consent consultation about randomised clinical trials. J Med Ethics.2011; 37 (2): 74–80.
27.
AudreyS.Qualitative research in evidence-based medicine: Improving decision-making and participation in randomized controlled trials of cancer treatments. Palliat Med.2011; 25 (8): 758–765.
28.
DonovanJ., MillsN., SmithM.Quality improvement report: improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study. Commentary: presenting unbiased information to patients can be difficult. BMJ.2002; 325 (7367): 766–770.
29.
ReeveJ., Lloyd-WilliamsM., PayneS., DowrickC.Revisiting biographical disruption: exploring individual embodied illness experience in people with terminal cancer. Health (London).2010; 14 (2): 178–195.
30.
MøllerT., AdamsenL.Hematologic patients’ clinical and psychosocial experiences with implanted long-term central venous catheter: self-management versus professionally controlled care. Cancer Nurs.2010; 33 (6): 426–435.
31.
VosM.S., de HaesJ.C.Denial in cancer patients, an explorative review. Psychooncology.2007; 16 (1): 12–25.
32.
FifeB.L., WrightE.R.The dimensionality of stigma: a comparison of its impact on the self of persons with HIV/AIDS and cancer. J Health Soc Behav.2000; 41 (1): 50–67.
33.
RosmanS.Cancer and stigma: experience of patients with chemotherapy-induced alopecia. Patient Educ Couns.2004; 52 (3): 333–339.
34.
SlevinM., MossmanJ., BowlingA.Volunteers or victims: patients’ views of randomised cancer clinical trials. Br J Cancer.1995; 71 (6): 1270–1274.
35.
Llewellyn-ThomasH.A., McGrealM.J., ThielE.C.Cancer patients’ decision making and trial-entry preferences: the effects of “framing” information about short-term toxicity and long-term survival. Med Decis Making.1995; 15 (1): 4–12.
36.
DonovanJ.L., ParamasivanS., de SalisI., ToerienM.Clear obstacles and hidden challenges: understanding recruiter perspectives in six pragmatic randomised controlled trials. Trials.2014; 15 (1): 5.
