Preferences and Perspectives of Specialist Multiple Sclerosis Nurses and Patients with Multiple Sclerosis Regarding the New RebiSmart^® 3.0 Autoinjector versus Other Assistive Devices

Figures & data

Table 1 Respondent Profiles (n = 102)

Characteristics	MS nurses (N = 52)
Location, n (%)
Germany	18 (34.6)
Italy	18 (34.6)
UK	16 (30.8)
Average time in practice, years	19
Average number of years initiating, managing, and educating pwMS on self-injectable devices, years	10
Average number of pwMS seen per month, n	94
Practice type (%)
University/teaching hospital	36.5
Specialized MS center	42.3
Community hospital	15.4
Group private clinic	3.8
Private clinic	1.9
Time spent with pwMS, (%)
Self-injection education	77.3
Educating on MS	9.6
Recording medical history	6.6
Monitoring health	6.5
Characteristics	PwMS (N = 50)
Location, n (%)
Germany	15 (30)
Italy	18 (36)
UK	17 (34)
Female patients, n (%)	35 (70)
Age (years), n (%)
20–34	11 (22)
35–49	17 (34)
50–65	22 (44)
Start of MS-related symptoms and diagnosis, n (%)	Symptoms	Diagnosis
1–5 years ago	8 (16)	8 (16)
6–10 years ago	15 (30)	16 (32)
11–15 years ago	9 (18)	10 (20)
15–30 years ago	17 (34)	15 (30)
30+ years ago	1 (2)	1 (2)
Current/Past RebiSmart 2.0 device user tenure, n (%)	(n = 27)
<48 months	15 (57)
48–120 months	7 (26)
>120 months	5 (17)

Abbreviations: pwMS, patients with multiple sclerosis; MS, multiple sclerosis.

Figure 1 Overall receptivity to RebiSmart 3.0. ^†Indicates significantly higher than patients at 90% confidence.

Figure 2 Importance of device features to user satisfaction: Anchored Probability Index. *Indicates significantly higher than patients at 90% confidence. ^†Indicates significantly higher than nurses at 90% confidence. ^‡The anchored maximum difference analysis was used for the relative ranking of the device features from greatest to least importance to user satisfaction. ^§This question was asked multiple times and only 4 features were shown at a time and were randomized in each screenshot; so the respondent would end up seeing a single feature listed on different screenshots.

Abbreviation: n, number of respondents.

Figure 3 Performance of RebiSmart 3.0 vs other self-injecting devices on key features. *Indicates significantly higher than patients at 90% confidence. ^†RebiSmart^® 2.0 Non-Users (n=23) that responded to questions on “Other devices performance”, were asked to consider the assistive device that they are currently using or recently used. ^‡The anchored maximum difference analysis was used for the relative ranking of the device features from greatest to least importance to user satisfaction.

Abbreviations: MS, multiple sclerosis; n, number of respondents.

Figure 4 Performance of RebiSmart 3.0 by RebiSmart 2.0 users vs RebiSmart 2.0 non-users. Data refers to proportion of respondents rating the feature either very good (4) or excellent (5) on the 5-point scale. *Indicates significantly higher than RebiSmart^® 2.0 device Non-Users at 90% confidence. ^†The anchored maximum difference analysis was used for the relative ranking of the device features from greatest to least importance to user satisfaction.

Abbreviations: MS, multiple sclerosis; n, number of respondents.

Figure 5 Features Which Raise Questions for Respondents (MS nurses and pwMS). *Indicates significantly higher than patients at 90% confidence. ^†RebiSmart^® 2.0 Non-Users patients (n=23) that responded to questions on “Other devices performance”, were asked to consider the assistive device that they are currently using or recently used. Other devices included Avonex^® pen and pre-filled syringe, Betaseron^®/Betaferon^® pre-filled syringe, ExtaviPro^® 30G Autoinjector, Ypsomate^®, glatiramer acetate pre-filled syringe and Plegridy^® pen.

Abbreviation: n, number of respondents.

Figure 6 Nurses’ recommendations.

Abbreviations: MS, multiple sclerosis; n, number of respondents.