↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Patient preferences in the treatment of hemophilia A: impact of storage conditions on product choice

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Patient preferences in the treatment of hemophilia A: impact of storage conditions on product choice
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, March 2018
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s151812
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bernd Tischer, Renato Marino, Mariasanta Napolitano

Abstract

To gain insights into the usage of factor VIII (FVIII) products by patients diagnosed with moderate/severe hemophilia A, and to assess the impact and perceived importance of product storage. In this study, 200 patients diagnosed with moderate or severe hemophilia A across seven countries participated. Data were collected via a 30-minute, face-to-face interview in six countries and via a web-based survey in the seventh country. The questionnaire evaluated the effect of six features associated with FVIII products on the choice of the product; the structure and flow of data collection was designed to eliminate potential bias. Two-thirds of the respondents were using recombinant FVIII products. Only 17% were generally dissatisfied with current FVIII products, whereas >40% of the respondents were dissatisfied with frequency of administration and storage issues when traveling. The majority noted restrictions in their daily activities, particularly travel and sports. Most of them (85%), stored their product in the refrigerator and of these, 88% believed that it should always be stored there. These patients were also less satisfied with the product overall, more concerned about storage temperature, more restricted in daily activities, and spent more time on preparation and injection compared with patients who stored their product at room temperature. Conjoint analysis revealed that origin of FVIII (plasma-derived vs recombinant) was the strongest driver of product choice among all respondents, followed by storage flexibility (temperature), reconstitution device, and administration frequency. In this study, we did not investigate the efficacy and safety of the product. Not refrigerating FVIII products was associated with greater patient satisfaction and less restriction on daily activities. If efficacy and safety are unaffected, then storing FVIII at room temperature might have a positive impact on product choice. Few patients were aware that FVIII can be stored without refrigeration, suggesting that health care professionals who treat hemophilia should communicate this aspect to the patient (depending on the labeled option); this approach might offer patients greater flexibility when traveling and require less time for reconstitution.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 15%
Student > Master 4 15%
Researcher 4 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Librarian 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 8 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 30%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 8 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 17 April 2020.
All research outputs
#14,917,568
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#757
of 1,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,847
of 345,373 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#14
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,733 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 345,373 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.