4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Factors Determining Patient Choice of Device for GH Therapy

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Aim: To assess the factors determining patient choice of GH device, and whether offering free patient choice improves compliance with GH therapy. Methods: A prospective cross-sectional study performed on patients offered free choice of GH device in a regional growth clinic. In a subgroup having home delivery, GH compliance was assessed using ampoule counts. Results: 125 patients (74 (59%) male), median (range) 9.30 (1.0–18.3) years were commenced on GH from January 2001 to March 2004, and offered free choice of device. 68 (54%) chose a needled device, and 57 (46%) needle-free. There was no statistical difference in age, sex or diagnostic category between the two groups. Light blue devices were more likely to be chosen by males (p = 0.056). Questionnaires giving reasons for choosing a device were available in 40, and a further 50 gave reasons for both choosing a specific device and not choosing others. Other than choice of needled/needle-free device, the factor most likely to determine choice was ‘ease of use’. Only 6 (4.8%) subsequently changed device, and compliance remained high but unchanged at ∼90%. Conclusions: There are no specific features which determine what GH device a patient will choose. For those units offering free patient choice, a wide range of different devices should be made available.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 4

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Psychological responses to the needle-free Medi-Jector or the multidose Disetronic injection pen in human growth hormone therapy.

          The aim of the study was to test the hypothesis that daily administration of growth hormone using the Medi-Jector results in fewer adverse psychological responses than needle injection with a multidose injection pen. The Medi-Jector is a needle-free injection device that can deliver growth hormone subcutaneously through jet injection. The group studied consisted of 18 children aged 10 y or over who were participating in a study of the bioequivalence and bioequipotence of the administration of growth hormone through jet injection or needle injection. Previously, all subjects had received growth hormone therapy with commercially available multidose injection pens. The study was designed as a prospective, randomized, two-period cross-over trial. A questionnaire was used to assess psychological responses such as non-compliance, opinion on ease of preparation, affective responses to administration and local side-effects, as well as overall preference. In addition, the subjects kept a diary during the study. The subjects found the Medi-Jector less offputting (p < 0.01), less painful with respect to both frequency (p < 0.04) and intensity (p < 0.01) and less unpleasant (p < 0.05) than a multidose injection pen with a 28G needle (p < 0.01). No difference in compliance was detected. Most subjects preferred the Medi-Jector for future use (p < 0.05). The mean score on a 1-10 point scale (10 is excellent) was 7.9 (SD 1.4) for the Medi-Jector and 6.8 (SD 2.3) for the multidose injection pen (p < 0.08). The prevalence of visible bruises each day was higher (p < 0.01) with the Medi-Jector (2.5, SD 2.1) than with the multidose injection pen (0.7, SD 1.1), but children showed indifferent affective responses to bruising. Thirteen out of 18 subjects decided to continue therapy with the Medi-Jector (p < 0.06). It is concluded that use of the Medi-Jector in growth hormone therapy tends to lead to fewer adverse psychological responses than a multidose injection pen with 28G needles.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Compliance with growth hormone treatment--are they getting it?

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Audit: UK Audit of Childhood Growth Hormone Prescription, 1998

               J. Hilken (2001)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                HRE
                Horm Res Paediatr
                10.1159/issn.1663-2818
                Hormone Research in Paediatrics
                S. Karger AG
                1663-2818
                1663-2826
                2006
                January 2006
                01 February 2006
                : 65
                : 1
                : 18-22
                Affiliations
                Departments of aEndocrinology and bPharmacy, Birmingham Children’s Hospital, Birmingham, UK
                Article
                90375 Horm Res 2006;65:18–22
                10.1159/000090375
                16357486
                © 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel

                Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                Page count
                Tables: 2, References: 11, Pages: 5
                Categories
                Original Paper

                Comments

                Comment on this article