OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to evaluate durable insulin pens among people with diabetes (PwD) and healthcare professionals (HCPs), by comparing two durable insulin pens with memory function: NovoPen® 5 (NP5) and HumaPen®Memoir™ (HPM), and two durable insulin pens without memory function: HumaPen Luxura® (HPL) and ClikSTAR® (CS). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This cross-over, multicentre usability test was conducted in China, Germany and the UK. Participants evaluated all four pens in randomised order by performing handling and usability tasks related to everyday use during a face-to-face interview. Tasks, pens and preferences were rated by completing a questionnaire comprising of rating and open-ended questions. RESULTS:NP5 was preferred by 51% of participants compared with HPM (22%, p < 0.01), HPL (12%, p < 0.01) and CS (15%, p < 0.01). Participants preferred the design of NP5 (in particular, appearance, length and robustness). Memory function for the two pens was rated equally by participants, but 54% of PwD rated NP5 as 'very easy' to learn to use versus 22% for HPM and significantly more HCPs found it 'very easy' to teach patients to use NP5 versus HPM (6-point rating scale; difference in mean score, p < 0.01). Substantially, more PwD would be confident in using NP5 (64%) compared with HPM (43%), HPL (49%) and CS (45%) (6-point rating scale; difference in mean score, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS:NP5 was preferred by > 50% of PwD and HCPs. NP5 was more highly rated for design, memory function and ease of learning/teaching compared with HPM. Most PwD would be confident in using NP5 for administering daily insulin injections.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to evaluate durable insulin pens among people with diabetes (PwD) and healthcare professionals (HCPs), by comparing two durable insulin pens with memory function: NovoPen® 5 (NP5) and HumaPen® Memoir™ (HPM), and two durable insulin pens without memory function: HumaPen Luxura® (HPL) and ClikSTAR® (CS). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This cross-over, multicentre usability test was conducted in China, Germany and the UK. Participants evaluated all four pens in randomised order by performing handling and usability tasks related to everyday use during a face-to-face interview. Tasks, pens and preferences were rated by completing a questionnaire comprising of rating and open-ended questions. RESULTS: NP5 was preferred by 51% of participants compared with HPM (22%, p < 0.01), HPL (12%, p < 0.01) and CS (15%, p < 0.01). Participants preferred the design of NP5 (in particular, appearance, length and robustness). Memory function for the two pens was rated equally by participants, but 54% of PwD rated NP5 as 'very easy' to learn to use versus 22% for HPM and significantly more HCPs found it 'very easy' to teach patients to use NP5 versus HPM (6-point rating scale; difference in mean score, p < 0.01). Substantially, more PwD would be confident in using NP5 (64%) compared with HPM (43%), HPL (49%) and CS (45%) (6-point rating scale; difference in mean score, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: NP5 was preferred by > 50% of PwD and HCPs. NP5 was more highly rated for design, memory function and ease of learning/teaching compared with HPM. Most PwD would be confident in using NP5 for administering daily insulin injections.
Authors: Mark A Clements; Stephen A DeLurgio; David D Williams; Sana Habib; Kelsee Halpin; Susana R Patton Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Lutz Heinemann; Oliver Schnell; Bernhard Gehr; Nanette C Schloot; Sven W Görgens; Christoph Görgen Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2021-01-11