Otwarty dostęp

Comparative evaluation and preference of MixPro® versus Mix2Vial® reconstitution devices among people with haemophilia and caregivers

Jon Ulrich Hansen

Jon Ulrich Hansen

Hillerød, Denmark
Wyszukaj tego autora
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Hansen, Jon Ulrich
, 
Cléa Percier

Cléa Percier

Zürich, Switzerland
Wyszukaj tego autora
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Percier, Cléa
, 
Henrik Damgaard-Rasmussen

Henrik Damgaard-Rasmussen

Hillerød, Denmark
Wyszukaj tego autora
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Damgaard-Rasmussen, Henrik
 oraz 
Katherine Palmer

Katherine Palmer

Phoenix Marketing InternationalRhinebeck, USA
Wyszukaj tego autora
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Palmer, Katherine
  
08 paź 2022
Comparative evaluation and preference of MixPro® versus Mix2Vial® reconstitution devices among people with haemophilia and caregivers's Cover Image
O artykule
Poprzedni artykuł
Następny artykuł
Zacytuj
Pobierz okładkę
Kategoria artykułu: Clinical Research
Data publikacji: 08 paź 2022
Zakres stron: 103 - 117
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jhp-2022-0012
Słowa kluczowe
© 2022 Jon Ulrich Hansen et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.
© Shutterstock/Jakub ZakLow contamination risk, simplicity of use, convenience and portability were the most important features for reconstitution devices in a survey of PwH and caregivers in the US, Italy, the UK and Japan
© Shutterstock/Jakub ZakLow contamination risk, simplicity of use, convenience and portability were the most important features for reconstitution devices in a survey of PwH and caregivers in the US, Italy, the UK and Japan

Figure 1

Interview discussion flowFlow diagram showing the predeterminedd flow of topics for face-to-face interviews. The system evaluated first was randomly rotated for respondents.
Interview discussion flowFlow diagram showing the predeterminedd flow of topics for face-to-face interviews. The system evaluated first was randomly rotated for respondents.

Figure 2

Relative importance of device features
Relative importance of device features

Figure 3

Independent device rating on listed featuresOverall device ratings for all listed device features. Devices were rated independently on all features. Values in the rectangle represent comparisons in which MixPro® did not rate significantly higher than Mix2Vial®.
Independent device rating on listed featuresOverall device ratings for all listed device features. Devices were rated independently on all features. Values in the rectangle represent comparisons in which MixPro® did not rate significantly higher than Mix2Vial®.

Figure 4

Paired comparison of device by feature
Paired comparison of device by feature

Figure 5

Device preference
Device preference

Figure 6

Word association for MixPro® and Mix2Vial®A. List of words associated with Mix2Vial® or B. MixPro®, in order of frequency, from most to least used. Values in the rectangles represent where one group selected a word significantly more than the other group.
Word association for MixPro® and Mix2Vial®A. List of words associated with Mix2Vial® or B. MixPro®, in order of frequency, from most to least used. Values in the rectangles represent where one group selected a word significantly more than the other group.

Supplementary Figure 1

Reconstitution processes using MixPro® and Mix2VialImages of the individual components of the MixPro® and Mix2Vial® device kits [20,29]
Reconstitution processes using MixPro® and Mix2VialImages of the individual components of the MixPro® and Mix2Vial® device kits [20,29]

Supplementary Figure 2

Unmet need of existing reconstitution devicesThe main categories of unmet needs for existing reconstitution devices discussed by participants. Each category had a number of subcategories, e.g. ‘Faster overall’ and ‘Fewer steps’ were subcategories of ‘Easier to use’.
Unmet need of existing reconstitution devicesThe main categories of unmet needs for existing reconstitution devices discussed by participants. Each category had a number of subcategories, e.g. ‘Faster overall’ and ‘Fewer steps’ were subcategories of ‘Easier to use’.

Supplementary Figure 3

Paired comparison of device by featuresDirect comparison of MixPro® and Mix2Vial® by listed features and country of residence
Paired comparison of device by featuresDirect comparison of MixPro® and Mix2Vial® by listed features and country of residence

j_jhp-2022-0012_tab_003

LIST OF PRE-SELECTED WORDS USED FOR WORD ASSOCIATION TASK
SHOW CARD, ROTATION A SHOW CARD, ROTATION B
Easy Precise
Bulky Scientific
User-friendly Confusing
Convenient Convenient
Safe Intuitive
Complicated Awkward
Compact User-friendly
Confusing Scary
Simple Safe
Precise Bulky
Scary Complicated
Impractical Portable
Modern Compact
Cumbersome Impractical
Reliable Simple
Streamlined Streamlined
Sleek Easy
Awkward Cumbersome
Difficult Sleek
Reassuring Modern
Scientific Reassuring
Quick Difficult
Sturdy Reliable
Innovative Innovative
Intuitive Quick
Portable Sturdy

j_jhp-2022-0012_tab_002

LIST OF FEATURES FOR RECONSTITUTION DEVICES
Easy to learn how to use the system
When drawing mixed factor into the syringe, there is good visibility of the factor
Very portable/easy to carry around
Low contamination risk when mixing
Easy handling steps
Low number of handling steps during mixing
Low number of separate parts
Easy to use if you need more than one vial for an injection
Suitable for a person with less strength (e.g. child, elderly, etc.)
Confident I could use the system correctly
System is intuitive to use
System is convenient to use
Easy to teach someone else how to use the system
Mixing can be accomplished quickly

Study participants

PARTICIPANT COUNTRY OF RESIDENCE
PWH CAREGIVERS USA ITALY UK JAPAN TOTAL
n 71 34 30 25 30 20 105
Age, years (range)* 34 (13–69) 16 (3–69) 29 (6–61) 39 (4–69) 22 (3–60) 26 (11–65) 29 (3–69)
Treatment type, n (%)
Prophylaxis 68 (96) 34 (100) 28 (93) 34 (96) 30 (100) 20 (100) 97 (102)
On-demand 3 (4) 0 (0) 2 (7) 1 (4) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (3)
Type of haemophilia, n (%)
A 61 (86) 29 (85) 26 (87) 24 (96) 28 (93) 12 (60) 90 (86)
B 10 (14) 5 (15) 4 (13) 1 (4) 2 (7) 8 (40) 15 (14)
Język:
Angielski
Częstotliwość wydawania:
1 razy w roku
Dziedziny czasopisma:
Medycyna, Podstawowe nauki medyczne, Podstawowe nauki medyczne, inne, Medycyna kliniczna, Medycyna kliniczna, inne, Farmacja, Farmakologia
Kanał RSS czasopisma