ArticleMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2024
Preferences and Perspectives of Specialist Multiple Sclerosis Nurses and Patients with Multiple Sclerosis Regarding the New RebiSmart
Article in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: RebiSmart Patients and Methods: Eligible MS nurses and pwMS from Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom completed a double-blind, 30-minute online self-administered questionnaire, including a 10-minute video describing the features of RebiSmart 3.0 and its use in administering interferon beta-1a. Results: In total, 102 participants (MS nurses, n=52; patients, n=50) completed the survey. Overall, 70% respondents found the RebiSmart 3.0 device "very"/"extremely" appealing, 53% were "very"/"extremely" interested in learning more, and 71% stated they would be "very"/"extremely" comfortable using (pwMS) or educating (MS nurses) on it. Among current or recent RebiSmart 2.0 users (vs RebiSmart 2.0 nonusers), 67% (vs 52%) rated RebiSmart 3.0 "very" or "extremely" appealing, 52% (vs 43%) were "very" or "extremely" interested in learning more about the device, and 67% (vs 48%) stated they would be "very" or "extremely" comfortable using the RebiSmart 3.0 device. Respondents ranked customizable injection process (including injection speed, hold time, depth and rotation guide), self-injection process, and hidden needle as the most important self-assistive device features. RebiSmart 3.0 was rated higher than other self-injecting devices on all tested features. Overall, with respect to the top three features, 89% of the MS nurses and 73% of PwMS rated RebiSmart 3.0 "very good" or "excellent". After reviewing the video, 52% respondents had no questions, 67% nurses recommended providing more information on the customizable injection process feature of RebiSmart 3.0 to patients, and 88% nurses considered patient demonstration materials to be the most helpful type of information for them when initiating and educating pwMS on self-assistive devices. Conclusion: The overall reactions of MS nurses and pwMS to the RebiSmart 3.0 device features were positive. The incremental advances over previous versions of the device as well as in comparison with other currently available assistive devices were welcomed. The MS nurses identified key needs for patient education on the use of the device and the suitable approaches (training videos and educational leaflets) to support MS nurses and pwMS.
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.