Functionality of a novel follitropin alfa pen injector: results from human factor interactions by patients and nurses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this user experience testing study was to evaluate the impact of human factors on the use of a disposable pen containing follitropin alfa by patients and nurses with special focus on the convenience, safety and ease of use, in different types of stimulation protocols. METHODS: Infertile women trying to conceive, and specialist nurses were recruited across 6 European countries. In total 18 patients and 19 nurses took part in the testing, which included both nurse-patient pairings and in-depth interviews. A standardized list of expected and pre-defined critical steps according to the Instructions for Use (IFU), was used to assess the correct handling of the pen. RESULTS: During the user experience testing, no critical errors, related to the use of the pen, which could affect the success of the injection process were identified. In general, both nurses and patients found the pen very easy to learn, use and would be confident using the pen for self-injection. Nurses also found the pen very easy to train the patients. CONCLUSIONS: The study provides valuable information on the pen from both patient and nurse perspectives in different simulated scenarios reflecting standard practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".