Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36810155›Full record

Observational studyEuropean journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice2024

Factors influencing the acceptability of different devices for subcutaneous drug delivery: a cross-sectional observational study from the patient's point of view.

Lisa Pivato, Daniele Mengato, Federica Torni, Claudia Battistutta, Francesca Temporin, Francesca Venturini

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Lisa PivatoDepartment of Hospital Pharmacy, Azienda Ospedale Università Padova, Padova, Veneto, Italy lisapivato@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0912-4117
Daniele MengatoDepartment of Hospital Pharmacy, Azienda Ospedale Università Padova, Padova, Veneto, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1374-1505
Federica TorniDepartment of Hospital Pharmacy, Azienda Ospedale Università Padova, Padova, Veneto, Italy.
Claudia BattistuttaDepartment of Hospital Pharmacy, Azienda Ospedale Università Padova, Padova, Veneto, Italy.
Francesca TemporinDepartment of Hospital Pharmacy, Azienda Ospedale Università Padova, Padova, Veneto, Italy.
Francesca VenturiniDepartment of Hospital Pharmacy, Azienda Ospedale Università Padova, Padova, Veneto, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn recent years, an increasing number of patient-reported outcome assessment tools (PROs) have been developed specifically to ascertain patients' perceptions of different drug treatments. Among them, the injection process has been analysed, especially in patients chronically treated with chronic biological therapies. One of the main advantages of most current biological therapies is the possibility to self-administer medication at home through the use of a variety of devices, including prefilled syringes (PFS) and prefilled pens (PFP).

objectivesThe aim of this study was to conduct qualitative research to assess the degree of preference between the different pharmaceutical forms PFS and PFP.

methodsWe performed a cross-sectional observational study in patients on biological drug therapy through the compilation of a web-based questionnaire at the time of routine delivery of biological therapy. Questions regarding primary diagnosis, adherence to therapy, the preferred pharmaceutical form and the main reason for preference among five possibilities already reported in the scientific literature were included.

resultsDuring the study period, data were collected from 111 patients and 68 (58%) indicated PFP as their preference. From the analysis of reasons that led a patient to choose one device over another, PFSs are chosen mainly out of habit (n=13 (28.3%) PFS vs n=2 (3.1%) PFP) while PFPs are chosen to avoid needle vision (n=15 (23.1%) PFP vs n=1 (2.2%) PFS). Both differences were found to be statistically significant (p<0.001).

conclusionAs biological subcutaneous drugs are increasingly prescribed for a wide variety of long-term therapies, further research focused on identifying patient factors which may enhance adherence to treatment will become even more valuable.

Indexed as

Drug Delivery SystemsPatient PreferenceSelf AdministrationAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInjections, SubcutaneousMaleMedication AdherenceMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesSyringesdermatologydrug administration routeseducation, pharmacygastroenterologyhospital distribution systemspharmacy administrationpharmacy service, hospitalrheumatology

Identifiers

PMID36810155
PMCPMC11265559

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.