ArticleBMJ open2026
Benefits and challenges in everyday life for patients performing subcutaneous immunoglobulin treatment at home: a qualitative interview study.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. 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.
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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Values and preferences of patients with inborn errors of immunity and their caregivers: a systematic review.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Pooled it
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
objectiveAcross medicine, new therapies are shifting treatment from clinic to home settings. At-home subcutaneous immunoglobulin treatment for immunodeficiency is an example of one such therapy. In this qualitative interview study, we investigated experiences of patients living an everyday life with subcutaneous immunoglobulin at-home treatment. STUDY DESIGN, SETTING AND
participants24 Danish patients participated in semistructured interviews. Six patients were interviewed in individual home-visit interviews, while the remaining 18 participated in one of six subsequent group interviews using an online video format. Participants represented three patient groups: patients with primary immunodeficiency, patients with secondary immunodeficiency, and patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy or multifocal motor neuropathy.
resultsAccording to the interviewed patients, at-home treatment provided a high degree of flexibility and freedom in everyday life. When transitioning to at-home treatment, a sense of security had been achieved through individualised training and access to healthcare professionals. Some patients experienced uncertainty or insecurity during the initial period of administering treatment at home; however, this typically receded over time. For the patients, at-home treatment had become embedded in everyday life either through incorporation into existing everyday routines or through the development of new routines. The time-related and place-related flexibility of the at-home treatment had benefits for several arenas of everyday life: work, family, and leisure. Patients associated at-home treatment with a sense of freedom, which they ascribed both to independence from the hospital and to not being confronted with medical conditions and other patients in the hospital setting. A small minority of the patients viewed the reduced contact with healthcare professionals as a disadvantage, describing feelings of being alone and responsible for their treatment.
conclusionsPatients who had established at-home treatment routines in their everyday lives found the benefits of at-home treatment to outweigh the challenges.
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.