Method studied/reference | Country | Participant characteristics | Outcomes accessed | Preferred treatment characteristics | Associated analytical theme |
Family choice of injection devices for GH therapy 11 | UK | Children and their parents attending a paediatric endocrine clinic (n=56). Median age of 13 years | Key attributes associated with utility levels using computer-based interviews |
|
|
Evaluation of a pen injector for GH17 | New Zealand | Children and parents of children on hGH treatment (n=77) | Via questionnaires, subjects perception of associated benefits, adequacy of instructions, satisfaction of information and response to treatment |
|
|
Disposable self-injector pen vs reusable pen for administration of hGH 18 | USA | Children and their caregivers (n=91 boys, 45 girls). Mean age of 12.3 years | Injection Pen Assessment Questionnaire (IPAQ), accessed ease of use, convenience, education and preference |
|
|
Comparison of three injection devices: Norditropin FlexPro Pen (FP), Genotropin GoQuick (GQ), Norditropin NordiFlex (NF) 21 | Germany | Subjects diagnosed with GHD, TS or short stature (n=64). Age range: >10 to <18 years old | Subjects device preferences regarding device features, overall ease of learning, ease of use and preference using a series of questionnaires |
|
|
Needle-free device with a lower injection volume22 | The Netherlands | Subjects who had been prescribed standard GHT and standard care (n=73). Mean age 10 years (SD 3.6 years) | Satisfaction, ease and frequency of reconstitution, painful sensations/bruising during administration and preference were measured through a questionnaire and diary |
|
|
Treatment experience of NordiFlex device23 | South Korea | Patients who previously used NordiLet/other devices and had used another GH device (n=94). Age range 4 to ≤18 years | Three-part survey to access GH device preference and ease of use, self-efficacy, positive feeling about injection and minimal disruption to daily life |
|
|
Factors driving patient preferences for GHD injection regimen and injection device features24 | USA | Child, adolescent and adult patients with a clinically confirmed diagnosis of GHD (n=224). Age range: paediatric 3–17 years (and caregivers) and adults (>25 years) | Evaluation of factors driving preferences for r-hGH injection regimen and device features via DCE administered online questionnaire |
|
|
Preferred features of GH injection devices25 | Switzerland | Parents who had children (1–18 years) without GHD (n=192). Average age of respondents was 40.2 years | Closed-design, web-based questionnaire measuring preferences and willingness to pay for specific attribute |
|
|
Preferred attributes of r-hGH administration28 | France, Germany, Italy, UK and USA | Individuals with experience in r-hGH administration (parents (with children <14 years old), teenage patients (13–15 years old) and physicians and nurses) (n=67) | Through a questionnaire, 19 attributes were assessed to evaluate the importance of ergonomics, functionality and the psychological impact of device |
|
|
Attitudes towards a reusable self-injection system (SurePal) 29 | France, Germany and the UK | Paediatric patients with GH deficiency, turner syndrome (TS), small gestational age, Prader-Willi syndrome, chronic renal failure (n=550). Mean age 10.8 years | Questionnaire measured attitudes on, attractiveness of device, training received, the low drug-wastage system and experience compared with other devices |
|
|
Needle-free device for GH 31 | USA | Children (aged 4–10 years) with type 1 diabetes mellitus (n=50) | A survey compared characteristics of a needle-free device to subjects morning insulin needle injection |
|
|
DCE, discrete choice experiment; GHD, growth hormone deficiency; GHT, growth hormone treatment; r-hGH, recombinant human growth hormone.