Evaluation of preference for a novel durable insulin pen with memory function among patients with diabetes and health care professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gerhard Klausmann,1 Irene Hramiak,2 Marianne Qvist,3 Kristian Handberg Mikkelsen,3 Xiaohui Guo4 1Internal Medicine Diabetology Practice, Aschaffenburg, Germany; 2Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, St Joseph's Healthcare, London, Ontario, Canada; 3Novo Nordisk A/S, Soeborg, Denmark; 4Department of Endocrinology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China Background: Improving adherence to insulin treatment for better glycemic control remains a challenge in the management of diabetes. New technological aids are required to help support adherence. This study evaluated preference for the NovoPen® 5 (NP5), a durable insulin pen with memory function, compared with the HumaPen Luxura® (HPL) among patients with diabetes and health care professionals. Methods: This crossover, multicenter usability study included insulin pen-experienced patients with diabetes and health care professionals treating patients with diabetes in Canada, China, and Germany. Participants evaluated NP5 and HPL in a randomized order by performing handling tasks in a usability test related to everyday use during a face-to-face interview. Tasks, pens, and preferences were assessed by completing a questionnaire comprised of rating and open-ended questions relating to confidence in everyday diabetes management. Results: Overall, 300 patients with diabetes and 150 health care professionals participated in the study. Significantly more participants preferred NP5 (81%) to HPL (18%) (P < 0.001). Also, 82% of patients with diabetes had more confidence in NP5 for managing their daily injections versus 11% with HPL (P < 0.001), and 7% had no preference. Memory function was most helpful in giving patients with diabetes confidence about when they last injected (63%), how much insulin they last injected (62%) and improving diabetes management (55%). Participants gave higher ratings to NP5 than to HPL on all parameters relating to performing an injection (ease of handling, satisfaction when using the pen, convenience of using the pen day-to-day, quality of the pen, and the extent to which the pen meets their needs; P < 0.05 for all comparisons). Conclusion: NP5 was preferred to HPL by most participants. Significantly more patients with diabetes had more confidence for managing daily insulin injections when using NP5, the pen with a memory function. Keywords: diabetes, durable insulin pen, memory function, confidence, usability, patient preference
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".