↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Autoinjector preference among patients with multiple sclerosis: results from a national survey

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 Mendeley
Title
Autoinjector preference among patients with multiple sclerosis: results from a national survey
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, August 2017
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s137741
Pubmed ID
Authors

V Limmroth, J Reischl, B Mann, X Morosov, A Kokoschka, I Weller, T Schreiner

Abstract

Autoinjectors are well-established in supporting multiple sclerosis (MS) therapy. This market survey was aimed at investigating patients' rating of three devices for subcutaneous interferon beta formulations: the electronic autoinjectors Betaconnect(®) and RebiSmart™ as well as the mechanical ExtaviPro™ device. Organization and conduction of structured face-to-face interviews in five German cities were managed through an independent external market research company. After questionnaire validation (n=15), 85 participants currently either using the Betaconnect (n=39), the RebiSmart (n=36) or the ExtaviPro injector (n=10) were asked 22 questions in the same order. First, patients named their current device in use, watched the corresponding instruction video, and were queried about their device. Second, patients were asked about their opinion of an ideal autoinjector. Third, instruction videos for the two non-used devices were presented and participants could dummy-inject into a pillow. Last, patients evaluated device features and indicated their preferred autoinjector. Before having been presented the two other autoinjectors not in use, evaluation of patients' satisfaction with their own device revealed that 82% of the Betaconnect users, 67% of the RebiSmart and 60% of the ExtaviPro users were highly satisfied. All patients desired some improvement of their own device particularly concerning optimization of size and handling. Subsequent to testing and watching instruction videos of all devices, the Betaconnect received the best rating regarding different functions. Finally, participants indicated their preferred autoinjector, provided their own medication was suitable for all three devices: 56.5% of the participants (n=48/85) chose the Betaconnect, 36.5% the RebiSmart (n=31/85), and 5% the ExtaviPro device (n=4/85); 2% did not answer (n=2/85). In this survey, the Betaconnect device was the preferred autoinjector and may currently best meet patients' needs. As it was closest to participants' opinion of an ideal device, the Betaconnect might contribute to treatment adherence. Our results need to be confirmed in further studies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 17%
Student > Bachelor 2 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 17%
Lecturer 1 8%
Student > Master 1 8%
Other 2 17%
Unknown 2 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 17%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 8%
Other 3 25%
Unknown 2 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 September 2017.
All research outputs
#1,486,218
of 11,691,744 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#86
of 957 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,981
of 267,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#3
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,691,744 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 957 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,416 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.