Factors determining patient choice of device for GH therapy.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

Factors determining patient choice of device for GH therapy. / Wickramasuriya, BP; Casey, A; Akhtar, S; Zia, R; Ehtisham, Sarah; Barrett, Timothy; Shaw, Nicholas; Kirk, Jeremy.

In: Hormone Research, Vol. 65, No. 1, 01.01.2006, p. 18-22.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Wickramasuriya, BP, Casey, A, Akhtar, S, Zia, R, Ehtisham, S, Barrett, T, Shaw, N & Kirk, J 2006, 'Factors determining patient choice of device for GH therapy.', Hormone Research, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 18-22. https://doi.org/10.1159/000090375

APA

Wickramasuriya, BP., Casey, A., Akhtar, S., Zia, R., Ehtisham, S., Barrett, T., Shaw, N., & Kirk, J. (2006). Factors determining patient choice of device for GH therapy. Hormone Research, 65(1), 18-22. https://doi.org/10.1159/000090375

Vancouver

Author

Wickramasuriya, BP ; Casey, A ; Akhtar, S ; Zia, R ; Ehtisham, Sarah ; Barrett, Timothy ; Shaw, Nicholas ; Kirk, Jeremy. / Factors determining patient choice of device for GH therapy. In: Hormone Research. 2006 ; Vol. 65, No. 1. pp. 18-22.

Bibtex

@article{e14cf5ecb79c409996b46eff47b3911b,
title = "Factors determining patient choice of device for GH therapy.",
abstract = "AIM: To assess the factors determining patient choice of GH device, and whether offering free patient choice improves compliance with GH therapy. METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional study performed on patients offered free choice of GH device in a regional growth clinic. In a subgroup having home delivery, GH compliance was assessed using ampoule counts. RESULTS: 125 patients (74 (59%) male), median (range) 9.30 (1.0-18.3) years were commenced on GH from January 2001 to March 2004, and offered free choice of device. 68 (54%) chose a needled device, and 57 (46%) needle-free. There was no statistical difference in age, sex or diagnostic category between the two groups. Light blue devices were more likely to be chosen by males (p=0.056). Questionnaires giving reasons for choosing a device were available in 40, and a further 50 gave reasons for both choosing a specific device and not choosing others. Other than choice of needled/needle-free device, the factor most likely to determine choice was 'ease of use'. Only 6 (4.8%) subsequently changed device, and compliance remained high but unchanged at approximately 90%. CONCLUSIONS: There are no specific features which determine what GH device a patient will choose. For those units offering free patient choice, a wide range of different devices should be made available.",
author = "BP Wickramasuriya and A Casey and S Akhtar and R Zia and Sarah Ehtisham and Timothy Barrett and Nicholas Shaw and Jeremy Kirk",
year = "2006",
month = jan,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1159/000090375",
language = "English",
volume = "65",
pages = "18--22",
journal = "Hormone Research",
issn = "0301-0163",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Factors determining patient choice of device for GH therapy.

AU - Wickramasuriya, BP

AU - Casey, A

AU - Akhtar, S

AU - Zia, R

AU - Ehtisham, Sarah

AU - Barrett, Timothy

AU - Shaw, Nicholas

AU - Kirk, Jeremy

PY - 2006/1/1

Y1 - 2006/1/1

N2 - AIM: To assess the factors determining patient choice of GH device, and whether offering free patient choice improves compliance with GH therapy. METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional study performed on patients offered free choice of GH device in a regional growth clinic. In a subgroup having home delivery, GH compliance was assessed using ampoule counts. RESULTS: 125 patients (74 (59%) male), median (range) 9.30 (1.0-18.3) years were commenced on GH from January 2001 to March 2004, and offered free choice of device. 68 (54%) chose a needled device, and 57 (46%) needle-free. There was no statistical difference in age, sex or diagnostic category between the two groups. Light blue devices were more likely to be chosen by males (p=0.056). Questionnaires giving reasons for choosing a device were available in 40, and a further 50 gave reasons for both choosing a specific device and not choosing others. Other than choice of needled/needle-free device, the factor most likely to determine choice was 'ease of use'. Only 6 (4.8%) subsequently changed device, and compliance remained high but unchanged at approximately 90%. CONCLUSIONS: There are no specific features which determine what GH device a patient will choose. For those units offering free patient choice, a wide range of different devices should be made available.

AB - AIM: To assess the factors determining patient choice of GH device, and whether offering free patient choice improves compliance with GH therapy. METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional study performed on patients offered free choice of GH device in a regional growth clinic. In a subgroup having home delivery, GH compliance was assessed using ampoule counts. RESULTS: 125 patients (74 (59%) male), median (range) 9.30 (1.0-18.3) years were commenced on GH from January 2001 to March 2004, and offered free choice of device. 68 (54%) chose a needled device, and 57 (46%) needle-free. There was no statistical difference in age, sex or diagnostic category between the two groups. Light blue devices were more likely to be chosen by males (p=0.056). Questionnaires giving reasons for choosing a device were available in 40, and a further 50 gave reasons for both choosing a specific device and not choosing others. Other than choice of needled/needle-free device, the factor most likely to determine choice was 'ease of use'. Only 6 (4.8%) subsequently changed device, and compliance remained high but unchanged at approximately 90%. CONCLUSIONS: There are no specific features which determine what GH device a patient will choose. For those units offering free patient choice, a wide range of different devices should be made available.

U2 - 10.1159/000090375

DO - 10.1159/000090375

M3 - Article

C2 - 16357486

VL - 65

SP - 18

EP - 22

JO - Hormone Research

JF - Hormone Research

SN - 0301-0163

IS - 1

ER -