Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 14, 2026
Proton Therapy Delivery and Its Clinical Application in Select Solid Tumor Malignancies
Published on: February 6, 2019
Factors determining patient choice of device for GH therapy
B P N Wickramasuriya1, A Casey, S Akhtar
1Department of Endocrinology, Birmingham Children's Hospital, Birmingham, UK.
Insights
Patient choice of growth hormone (GH) device is not determined by specific features. Offering free choice of GH devices and a variety of options supports high patient compliance.
Area of Science:
- Pediatric Endocrinology
- Medical Device Technology
Background:
- Patient adherence to growth hormone (GH) therapy is crucial for treatment success.
- Understanding factors influencing patient choice of GH delivery devices is essential for optimizing therapeutic outcomes.
Purpose of the Study:
- To identify factors influencing patient selection of growth hormone (GH) devices.
- To determine if offering patients a free choice of GH devices impacts compliance with GH therapy.
Main Methods:
- A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted in a regional growth clinic.
- Patients were offered a free choice of GH devices, and compliance was assessed via ampoule counts for those with home delivery.
Main Results:
- Of 125 patients, 54% chose needle-free devices and 46% chose needled devices, with no significant differences in age, sex, or diagnosis.
- 'Ease of use' was the primary factor influencing device choice, beyond the needle/needle-free preference.
- High compliance (approx. 90%) was maintained, with only 4.8% of patients changing devices.
Conclusions:
- No specific patient characteristics predict growth hormone (GH) device preference.
- Providing a wide selection of GH devices when offering patient choice is recommended to maximize adherence.
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.
