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 approximately 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. Copyright (c) 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel.
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 approximately 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. Copyright (c) 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel.
Authors: Maria G Marini; Paola Chesi; Laura Mazzanti; Laura Guazzarotti; Teresa D Toni; Maria C Salerno; Annunziata Officioso; Maria Parpagnoli; Cristina Angeletti; Maria F Faienza; Maria L Iezzi; Tommaso Aversa; Cinzia Sacchetti Journal: Future Sci OA Date: 2016-02-25
Authors: Carl-Joachim Partsch; Dirk Schnabel; Sarah Ehtisham; Helen C Johnstone; Markus Zabransky; Wieland Kiess Journal: Med Devices (Auckl) Date: 2015-09-15
Authors: Robert Rapaport; Paul Saenger; Heinrich Schmidt; Yukihiro Hasegawa; Michel Colle; Sandro Loche; Sandra Marcantonio; Walter Bonfig; Markus Zabransky; Fima Lifshitz Journal: Med Devices (Auckl) Date: 2013-09-02