ArticleMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2015
Usability of a new disposable autoinjector platform device: results of a formative study conducted with a broad user population.
Article in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Comparative Use Human Factors Study of a Manual vs. A Partially Automated Pen Injector for GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Delivery.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Trial
- A Comparative Study of Dasiglucagon Ready-to-Use Autoinjector and Glucagon Emergency Kit During Rescue from Simulated Severe Hypoglycemia.Diabetes technology & therapeutics · 2022Trial
- The Pharmacokinetics and Relative Bioavailability of Mepolizumab 100 mg Liquid Formulation Administered Subcutaneously to Healthy Participants: A Randomized Trial.Clinical pharmacology in drug development · 2020Trial
- Human factors validation study of a disposable autoinjector (Bmab 1200 autoinjector) for subcutaneous delivery of Ustekinumab.Drug delivery · 2026Article
- Assessment of Flexible Dosing Volumes in an Existing Spring-Driven Autoinjector Platform.Pharmaceutics · 2026Article
- Autoinjectors for Administering Glatiramer Acetate in Relapsing Remitting Multiple Sclerosis in Europe: A Survey of Patient and Nurse Preferences.Degenerative neurological and neuromuscular disease · 2024Article
- Quantifying Patient Capabilities and Setting the Stage for Future Development: Insights from a Sensor-Augmented Simulated Use Study with Pen Injectors.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- Autoinjector - A smart device for emergency cum personal therapy.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2021Review
- Formative Study on the Wearability and Usability of a Large-Volume Patch Injector.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2021Article
- User-Centric Approach to Specifying Technical Attributes of Drug Delivery Devices: Empirical Study of Autoinjector-Cap Removal Forces.Patient preference and adherence · 2021Article
- Patient Reported Ease-of-Use with a Disposable Autoinjector in Individuals with Migraine.Patient preference and adherence · 2020Article
- A portfolio of biologic self-injection devices in rheumatology: how patient involvement in device design can improve treatment experience.Drug delivery · 2019Review
- Evaluation of a Novel Wellness Assessment Device (Preventiometer): A Feasibility Pilot Study.Global advances in health and medicine · 2019Article
- Formative usability evaluation of a fixed-dose pen-injector platform device.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article presents a late-stage formative usability study of an autoinjector platform device. Such devices are used for the subcutaneous delivery of biopharmaceuticals, primarily for self-administration by the patient. Previous usability work on autoinjectors reported in the literature has been specific to single indications. This study was instead conducted with a broad user population, defined to represent user characteristics across a range of indications. The goals of the study were to evaluate whether users could use the devices safely and effectively, and could understand the instructions for use (IFU) as well as the accompanying training. Further objectives were to capture any usability issues and to obtain participants' subjective ratings on the IFU and training as well as the confidence and comfort in using the device. A total of 43 participants in 5 groups received training and performed simulated injections either into an injection pad or a mannequin. All participants were able to successfully use the device. The device was well appreciated by all users, with a reported degree of confidence in using the device of 98%, of user comfort of 93%, and of comprehensibility of IFU and training of 98%. These values are higher than other comparable results reported in the literature. The presence of both audible and visible feedback during injection was seen to be a significant factor contributing to injection success. The observation that the device can be safely and efficiently used by all tested user groups provides confidence that the device and IFU in their current form will pass future summative testing in specific applications.
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.