ArticleBMJ open2019
Patient acceptability of three different central venous access devices for the delivery of systemic anticancer therapy: a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The value of qualitative research in randomized controlled trials involving drugs and medical devices: a systematic mapping review.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026Pooled it
- Adult oncology patients' experiences of living with a central venous catheter: a systematic review and meta-synthesis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022Pooled it
- Post-Treatment Trajectories of Retained Totally Implantable Venous Access Ports After Anticancer Therapy: A Conditional Landmark Cohort Study.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Quality of life in women with breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy: a comparative cross-sectional study of CICC ports and PICC-ports.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2026Article
- Translation and validation of the Brazilian Portuguese version of the quality of life vascular access device questionnaire for chemotherapy patients.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2025Article
- Supportive care needs of adults living with a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) at home: a qualitative content analysis.BMC nursing · 2024Article
- Article
- Beyond clinical and cost-effectiveness: The contribution of qualitative research to health technology assessment.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2023Article
- Indwelling experience and coping strategies of upper arm infusion ports in patients with cancer: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2023Article
- The experiences of adolescents living with a central venous access device: A qualitative analysis.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2022Article
- Factors influencing the optimal selection of central venous access devices: A qualitative study of health care team members' perspectives.International journal of nursing sciences · 2022Article
- Peripherally or centrally inserted central catheters: what is the best vascular access device for cancer patients?Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021Article
- Totally Implantable Venous Access Devices: A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Effect of Psychological Support on Quality of Life and Body Image (BI-PORT).Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThree types of central venous access devices (CVADs) are routinely used in the delivery of intravenous systemic anticancer therapy (SACT): peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), subcutaneously tunnelled central catheters (Hickman-type devices) and totally implantable chest wall ports (Ports). This qualitative study, nested within a multicentre, randomised controlled trial, sought to explore patient acceptability and experiences of the three devices.
designEight focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed.
settingSix outpatient cancer treatment centres in the UK.
participantsForty-two patients (20 female, mean age 61.7 years) who had taken part or were taking part in the broader trial.
interventionAs part of the larger, randomised controlled trial, participants had been randomly assigned one of three CVADs for the administration of SACT.
resultsAttitudes towards all three devices were positive, with patients viewing their CVAD as part of their treatment and recovery. Participants with PICCs and Hickmans tended to compare their device favourably with peripheral cannulation. By comparison, participants with Ports consistently compared their device with PICCs and Hickmans, emphasising the perceived superiority of Ports. Ports were perceived to offer unique psychological benefits, including a greater sense of freedom and less intrusion in the context of personal relationships.
conclusionsPatient experiences and preferences have not been systematically used to inform policy and practice regarding CVAD availability and selection. Our research identified patterns of patient device preferences that favoured Ports, although this was not universal. Results of this study could improve support for patients and offer greater scope for incorporating patient perspectives into decision-making processes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN44504648.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.