Novopen Echo® for the Delivery of Insulin: A Comparison of Usability, Functionality and Preference among Pediatric Subjects, Their Parents, and Health Care Professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite advances in insulin pen design and functionality, the selection of pens available for children with diabetes is limited. This study assessed the usability, functionality and attitudes towards NovoPen Echo®, a new durable insulin pen designed for pediatric patients that combines a simple memory function with half-increment dosing, versus NovoPen® Junior and HumaPen® Luxura™ HD in pediatric subjects, their parents, and health care professionals (HCPs). METHODS: Pens were evaluated in random order during 1:1 interviews in the three target groups (pediatric subjects, parents, and HCPs) in Germany, France, and Canada. Study participants were asked to prepare each pen, perform injections into foam cushions, and provide feedback via a standardized questionnaire. RESULTS: In total, 205 participants were included in the study. On a scale of 1-6 (1=most favorable; 6=least favorable regarding overall appearance, shape, colors, thickness and length), NovoPen Echo received the most favorable rating for design and overall appearance (mean±standard deviation=1.71±0.79) compared with NovoPen Junior (2.02±0.93) and HumaPen Luxura HD (2.36±1.01). Furthermore, 89% of pediatric subjects and 94% of parents rated the memory function of NovoPen Echo as very easy/easy to use. When asked to rate the pens overall, 80% of participants preferred NovoPen Echo to the other pens (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate a high overall level of satisfaction with NovoPen Echo among pediatric subjects, parents, and HCPs. The novel design aspects of NovoPen Echo, namely the simple memory function, half-increment units and, ease of use and design, may contribute towards promoting treatment adherence, which is essential in the pediatric setting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".