Quality-of-Life Assessment: Arm TIVAD versus Chest TIVAD

Burbridge, Brent; Goyal, Kunal

doi:10.5301/jva.5000609

Cited by 14 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 8 publications

(10 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In total, 11 full texts (Akahane et al., ; Berdel et al., ; Goltz, Noack, et al., ; Kuriakose et al., ; Li et al., ; Marcy et al., , ; Minassian et al., ; Shiono et al., ; Tesselaar, Ouwerkerk, Nooy, Rosendaal, & Osanto, ; Weickhardt et al., ) and four conferences abstracts (Marcy et al., ; Morris, Buller, Kendall, & Anderson, ; Inoue, Shibatika, Kimura, Kimoto, & Akedo, ; York et al., ) were finally included in quantitative synthesis. Six texts were excluded, as these records compared insertion techniques (Marcy et al., ), quality of life (Bow, Kilpatrick, & Clinch, ; Burbridge & Goyal, ), satisfaction and impact (Goltz, Petritsch, Kirchner, Hahn, & Kickuth, ; Lilienberg, Bengtsson, & Starkhammar, ; Shengju Wu, Wentao, Jiefen, Zaofeng, & Xiaoyan, ).…”

Section: The Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of complications between peripheral arm ports and central chest ports: A meta‐analysis

Zhang

et al. 2018

Journal of Advanced Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: The Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of complications between peripheral arm ports and central chest ports: A meta‐analysis

Zhang

et al. 2018

Journal of Advanced Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Burbridge used the Questionnaire for Acceptance of and Satisfaction with Implanted Central Venous Catheter (QASICC) scale to assess the quality of life and satisfaction of patients with upper arm and chest TIVADS. For better comparison of the effectiveness of patients with the two ports and determine whether it was in accordance with local legal norms, his team have developed the QLAVD-P. 7 It bases on the thoughts of Marcy et al 8 and the survival of cancer patients in Canada, and it includes the impact on daily and professional activities; aesthetics and privacy; pain, anxiety, fear, and comfort during the treatment process; local discomfort and overall satisfaction during port implantation, and so on. These scores were closely associated with patient’s gender, type of anesthesia, implanted side of the port, age, and tumor type.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The researchers compared the original scale with the draft C, and provided comments for inconsistencies. Appropriate adjustments and correction of the inaccuracies regarding the translation problems in the Chinese version of draft B were made, and then the draft C was reverse translated and compared with the English version of QLAVD-P. 7 Finally, the Chinese version of draft B was revised again to establish the final version.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The QLAVD-P is a quality of life scale used for patients using the upper arm and chest ports, developed by Burbridge and Goyal. 7 According to the document retrieval, which is based on 22 items of the QASICC questionnaire developed by French doctor Marcy et al, 8 Burbridge added there were 23 yes/no items, and seven items were numerical rating scales that were rated based on patients’ actual experience. Scores of 0–10 were given, where 0 points indicate no pain, and 10 points indicate very severe pain.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Chinesization of the quality of life assessment, venous device-port, and its reliability and validity tests for patients with breast cancer

Liu

Jiang

et al. 2020

J Vasc Access

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To translate the assessment item sets of the Canadian version of the quality of life assessment, venous device-port for breast cancer patients with chest and arm ports (i.e. different implanting sites) into Chinese version, and to conduct a test of reliability and validity for it. Methods: According to the Brislin translation model, quality of life assessment, venous device-port underwent literal and back translations, and the Chinese version of quality of life assessment, venous device-port was preliminarily revised by consulting an expert and a preliminary test. A total of 270 cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy were assessed during the use of ports, and the reliability and the validity of the Chinese version of quality of life assessment, venous device-port scale were then tested. Results: The scale consisted of 23 yes/no items and seven numerical rating scales. The total Cronbach’s α coefficient of the scale was 0.829, and each item ranged from 0.812 to 0.845. The item-level content validity index was 0.67–1.00, and the scale-level content validity index/average and the scale-level content validity index/universal agreement were 0.98 and 0.90, respectively. The correlation coefficient of the repeated measurement results of the scale was 0.554 ( p < 0.01). Exploratory factor analysis showed that the cumulative explained variance of five common factors was 64.197%. Conclusion: The Chinese version of quality of life assessment, venous device-port scale is an effective assessment tool for quality of life with good reliability and validity in breast cancer patients with different implantation sites for totally implanted venous access devices in northern China.

show abstract

“…In addition, to our knowledge, there are no validated or standardised measures relating to patient experiences of CVADs in common usage. For instance, one such measure recently developed in France (specific to Port devices) [ 11 ] has to date been used in a single pilot study [ 12 ]. Consequently, we anticipate significant heterogeneity with regard to quantitative outcomes, and these data will not be quantitatively synthesised.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Protocol for a systematic review and thematic synthesis of patient experiences of central venous access devices in anti-cancer treatment

Ryan

Hesselgreaves

et al. 2018

Syst Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThree types of central venous access devices (CVADs)—peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), skin-tunnelled central catheters (Hickman-type devices), and implantable chest wall Ports (Ports)—are routinely used in the intravenous administration of anti-cancer treatment. These devices avoid the need for peripheral cannulation and allow for home delivery of treatment. Assessments of these devices have tended to focus on medical and economic factors, but there is increased interest in the importance of patient experiences and perspectives in this area. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesise existing research regarding patient experiences of these CVADs to help clinicians guide, prepare, and support patients receiving CVADs for the administration of anti-cancer treatment.MethodA systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL research databases will be carried out along with a supplementary reference list search. This review will include quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies published in peer-review journals, reporting some aspect(s) of patient experiences or perspectives regarding the use of PICC, Hickman, or Port CVADs for the administration of anti-cancer drugs. The methodological quality and risk of bias of included papers will be assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Relevant outcome data will be extracted from included studies and analysed using a thematic synthesis approach.DiscussionThe results section of the review will comprise thematic synthesis of quantitative studies, thematic synthesis of qualitative studies, and the aggregation of the two. Results will aim to offer an account of current understandings of patient experiences and perspective regarding PICC, Hickman-type, and Port devices in the context of anti-cancer treatment. Confidence in cumulative evidence will be assessed using the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (CERQual) approach.Systematic review registrationThis systematic review protocol is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). Registration number: CRD42017065851. This protocol was prepared using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols checklist (PRISMA-P) (Shamseer et al., BMJ 349: 2015).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-018-0721-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Quality-of-Life Assessment: Arm TIVAD versus Chest TIVAD

Cited by 14 publications

References 8 publications

Comparison of complications between peripheral arm ports and central chest ports: A meta‐analysis

Comparison of complications between peripheral arm ports and central chest ports: A meta‐analysis

Chinesization of the quality of life assessment, venous device-port, and its reliability and validity tests for patients with breast cancer

Protocol for a systematic review and thematic synthesis of patient experiences of central venous access devices in anti-cancer treatment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About