[Multicenter validation study of a questionnaire assessing patient satisfaction with and acceptance of totally-implanted central venous access devices]

OBJECTIVE

Most cancer patients require a totally-implanted central venous access device (TIVAD) for their treatment. This was a prospective, multicenter, open study to: (i) develop and validate a French-language questionnaire dubbed QASICC (Questionnaire for Acceptance of and Satisfaction with Implanted Central Venous Catheter) assessing patient's satisfaction with and acceptance of their TIVAD; (ii) develop a mean score of patient's acceptance and satisfaction; (iii) look for correlation between QASICC score and TIVAD patient/tumor pathology/device characteristics.

METHODS

From 2011 November to 2012 December, the first version of the QASICC questionnaire that included 27 questions assessing seven dimensions was re-tested among 998 cancer patients in eleven French cancer hospitals (eight cancer research institutes and three university/general hospitals). The goal was: (i) to reduce the questionnaire item and dimension number (pertinency, saturation effect, item correlation); (ii) to assess its psychometric properties, demonstrate its validity and independency compared to (EORTC) QLQC30; (iii) to correlate clinical and pathological patient's/tumor's/TIVAD's parameters with the QASICC questionnaire score (the higher the overall score, the greater the acceptance and satisfaction). The questionnaire was administered to the patient 30 days (±15 days) after TIVAD's implantation.

RESULTS

Among 998 questionnaires given to cancer patients, 658 were analyzed and 464 were fully assessed as there was no missing data. Time to fill-in the questionnaire was five minutes in 90% patients. Final QASICC tool included twenty-two questions assessing four homogeneous dimensions (65%<Cronbach coefficient<85%): (i) impact on daily activities and professional activities; (ii) esthetics and privacy; (iii) pain, contribution to the comfort of the treatment; (iv) local discomfort. Respective assessment scores were 23.6%, 32.9%, 20.4% and 18.0%. Overall satisfaction score was 75.8%; global assessment score was 76.2%. These scores were significantly linked to patient's gender, anesthesia type, TIVAD's implantation side, patient's age and tumor type.

CONCLUSIONS

This second and final methodological and statistical validation of this auto-questionnaire QASICC allows us to propose it as a dedicated questionnaire to TIVAD's cancer patients by using a score assessing acceptance and satisfaction regarding their device.