2017
DOI: 10.1080/17425247.2018.1415884
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Pen devices for self-injection: contrasting measured injection force with users’ perceived ease of injection

Abstract: The article bridges literature on injection force measurement and simulated use. It reveals how users' perceived ease of injection is less sensitive to measured injection forces than prior research has assumed. Thus, future research should holistically integrate patient feedback in new device development. Key limitations of this work are the low number of participants in the simulated use study and the fact that the ease of injection was assessed indirectly.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

3
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 57 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A total of three user interface design versions of the connected self-injection system were thus evaluated. The usability of each version was investigated in an independent and separate study of formative testing using eye-tracking as a research method (ETS1-3) based on single site visits [34,60,61]. The insights obtained in eye-tracking studies ETS1 and ETS2 guided the subsequent Design Iterations A and B, respectively.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A total of three user interface design versions of the connected self-injection system were thus evaluated. The usability of each version was investigated in an independent and separate study of formative testing using eye-tracking as a research method (ETS1-3) based on single site visits [34,60,61]. The insights obtained in eye-tracking studies ETS1 and ETS2 guided the subsequent Design Iterations A and B, respectively.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Formative usability studies have proven indispensable tools to advance device development [32,33]. Traditionally, new product development has advanced in cycles of optimizing the user interface of pen systems and (re-) assessing patient preferences [34]. Specifically, users' self-reported ratings or responses to openended questions [18,21,35,36], interviews [37,38], or observations [39][40][41] have been established as standard methods to assess patient engagement with mechanical autoinjectors or dial-anddose insulin pens [33,[42][43][44].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the feasibility of longer injection times using handheld drug delivery devices in terms of usability has been mostly neglected. This scarcity of studies is unexpected, because the ability of patients to safely and effectively perform self-injections is emphasized as a prerequisite for successful product validation, regulatory approval, and commercial uptake [26,40].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…21 Because assumptions about which features would be important to end-users may not always be accurate, it is critical to holistically integrate their feedback to fully understand preferences for medical devices. 22 This study sought to qualitatively understand perceptions about glucagon delivery devices and potential effects of different delivery devices for severe hypoglycemia, specifically nasal glucagon and autoinjector glucagon, from the perspective of the patient, caregiver, and acquaintance.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%