Toward a new age of patient centricity? The application of eye-tracking to the development of connected self-injection systems

References

• Limmroth V, Gerbershagen K. Single-use autoinjector for once-weekly intramuscular injection of IFNβ-1a. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2014;11(12):1969–1978.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weller I, Saake A, Schreiner T, et al. Patient satisfaction with the BETACONNECT™ autoinjector for interferon beta-1b. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2015;9:951–959.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brand-Schieber E, Munjal S, Kumar R, et al. Human factors validation study of 3 mg sumatriptan autoinjector, for migraine patients. Med Devices (Auckl). 2016;9:131–137.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Paul C, Lacour JP, Tedremets L, et al. Efficacy, safety and usability of secukinumab administration by autoinjector/pen in psoriasis: a randomized, controlled trial (JUNCTURE). J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2015;29(6):1082–1090.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torjman MC, Machnicki R, Lessin J, et al. Evaluation of an investigational wearable injector in healthy human volunteers. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2017;14(1):7–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Den Berghe G, Wouters P, Weekers F, et al. Intensive insulin therapy in critically Ill patients. N Eng J Med. 2001;345(19):1359–1367.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirsch IB, Farkas-Hirsch R, Skyler JS. Intensive insulin therapy for treatment of type I diabetes. Diabetes Care. 1990;13(12):1265–1283.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zambanini A, Newson RB, Maisey M, et al. Injection related anxiety in insulin-treated diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 1999;46(3):239–246.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graff MR, McClanahan MA. Assessment by patients with diabetes mellitus of two insulin pen delivery systems versus a vial and syringe. Clin Ther. 1998;20(3):486–496.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asakura T, Seino H, Nakano R, et al. A comparison of the handling and accuracy of syringe and vial versus prefilled insulin pen (FlexPen). Diabetes Technol Ther. 2009;11(10):657–661.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lteif AN, Schwenk WF. Accuracy of pen injectors versus insulin syringes in children with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 1999;22(1):137–140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walters DP, Smith PA, Marteau TM, et al. Experience with NovoPen®, an injection device using cartridged insulin, for diabetic patients. Diabet Med. 1985;2(6):496–497.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klonoff D, Nayberg I, Thonius M, et al. Accuracy and injection force of the Gla-300 injection device compared with other commercialized disposable insulin pens. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2015;10(1):125–130.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pfützner A. FlexPen for the delivery of insulin: accuracy, injection force and patient preference. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2009;6(2):115–123.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke A, Spollett G. Dose accuracy and injection force dynamics of a novel disposable insulin pen. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2007;4(2):165–174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bailey T, Campos C. FlexTouch(R) for the delivery of insulin: technical attributes and perception among patients and healthcare professionals. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2012;9(3):209–217.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penfornis A. Performance of a new reusable insulin pen. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2011;13(3):373–379.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Israël-Bultman H, Hyllested-Winge J, Kolaczynski M, et al. Comparison of preference for NovoPen(®) 4 with previous insulin pen treatments after 12 weeks in adult patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes: a multicenter observational study. Clin Ther. 2011;33(3):346–357.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin JM, Llewelyn JA, Ristic S, et al. Acceptability and safety of a new 3.0 ml re-usable insulin pen (HumaPen) in clinical use. Diabetes Nutr Metab. 1999;12(5):306–309.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ignaut DA, Schwartz SL, Sarwat S, et al. Comparative device assessments: humalog KwikPen compared with vial and syringe and FlexPen. Diabetes Educ. 2009;35(5):789–798.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barone DA, Singer BA, Merkov L, et al. Survey of US patients with multiple sclerosis: comparison of the new electronic interferon beta-1b autoinjector (BETACONNECT™) with mechanical autoinjectors. Neurol Ther. 2016;5(2):155–167.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bailey TS, Stone JY. A novel pen-based Bluetooth-enabled insulin delivery system with insulin dose tracking and advice. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2017;14(5):697–703.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Årsand E, Muzny M, Bradway M, et al. Performance of the first combined smartwatch and smartphone diabetes diary application study. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2015;9(3):556–563.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hanauer DA, Wentzell K, Laffel N, et al. Computerized automated reminder diabetes system (CARDS): e-mail and SMS cell phone text messaging reminders to support diabetes management. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2009;11(2):99–106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz FL, Guo A, Marling CR, et al. Analysis of use of an automated bolus calculator reduces fear of hypoglycemia and improves confidence in dosage accuracy in type 1 diabetes mellitus patients treated with multiple daily insulin injections. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2012;6(1):150–152.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Barnard K, Parkin C, Young A, et al. Use of an automated bolus calculator reduces fear of hypoglycemia and improves confidence in dosage accuracy in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus treated with multiple daily insulin injections. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2012;6(1):144–149.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rodbard D. Continuous glucose monitoring: a review of successes, challenges, and opportunities. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2016;18(Suppl 2):S3–S13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodbard D. Continuous glucose monitoring: a review of recent studies demonstrating improved glycemic outcomes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017;19(S3):S25–S37.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vadlapatla R, Wong EY, Gayakwad SG. Electronic drug delivery systems: an overview. J Drug Delivery Sci Technol. 2017;41:359–366.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roth EM, Bujas-Bobanovic M, Louie MJ, et al. Patient and physician perspectives on mode of administration of the PCSK9 monoclonal antibody alirocumab, an injectable medication to lower LDL-C levels. Clin Ther. 2015;37(9):1945–1954.e6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burmester GR, Rubbert-Roth A, Cantagrel A, et al. A randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study of the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous tocilizumab versus intravenous tocilizumab in combination with traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (SUMMACTA study). Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73(1):69–74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lange J, Richard P, Bradley N. Usability of a new disposable autoinjector platform device: results of a formative study conducted with a broad user population. Med Devices (Auckl). 2015;8:255–264.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schiff M, Koo J, Jin E, et al. Usability and acceptability of the abatacept pre-filled autoinjector for the subcutaneous treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Adv Ther. 2016;33(2):199–213.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider AE, Lange J. Pen devices for self-injection: contrasting measured injection force with users’ perceived ease of injection. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2018 Feb;15(2):115–125. doi:10.1080/17425247.2018.1415884.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shogbon AO, Ngo D, Jacob B, et al. Nurses’ perceptions and satisfaction with the use of insulin pen devices compared with insulin vial and syringes in an inpatient setting. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2014;16(11):742–746.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thakur K, Biberger A, Handrich A, et al. Patient perceptions and preferences of two etanercept autoinjectors for rheumatoid arthritis: findings from a patient survey in Europe. Rheumatol Ther. 2016;3(2):245–256.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guo X, Sommavilla B, Vanterpool G, et al. Evaluation of a new durable insulin pen with memory function among people with diabetes and healthcare professionals. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2012;9(4):355–356.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klonoff D, Nayberg I, Erbstein F, et al. Usability of the Gla-300 injection device compared with three other commercialized disposable insulin pens: results of an Interview-based survey. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2015;9(4):936–938.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Haak T, Edelman S, Walter C, et al. Comparison of usability and patient preference for the new disposable insulin device Solostar versus Flexpen, lilly disposable pen, and a prototype pen: an open-label study. Clin Ther. 2007;29(4):650–660.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Böhler S, Landgraf W, Schreiber SA. [Evaluation of a new disposable insulin pen and injection habits of diabetes patients in everyday clinical practice]. MMW Fortschr Med. 2010;151(Suppl 4):179–187.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ramadan WH, Khreis NA, Kabbara WK. Simplicity, safety, and acceptability of insulin pen use versus the conventional vial/syringe device in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in Lebanon. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2015;9:517–528.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antinori-Lent KJ. Analysis of comparison of patient preference for two insulin injection pen devices in relation to patient dexterity skills. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2012;6(4):917–920.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Siegmund T, Blankenfeld H, Schumm-Draeger PM. Comparison of usability and patient preference for insulin pen needles produced with different production techniques: “thin-wall” needles compared to “regular-wall” needles: an open-label study. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2009;11(8):523–528.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klausmann G, Hramiak I, Qvist M, et al. Evaluation of preference for a novel durable insulin pen with memory function among patients with diabetes and health care professionals. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2013;7:285–292.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polanyi M. The tacit dimension. New York: Doubleday & Company Inc.; 1966.
   Google Scholar
• Nonaka I. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organ Sci. 1994;5(1):14–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duchowski AT. Eye tracking methodology. London: Springer; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Asan O, Yang Y. Use eye trackers for usability evaluation of health information technology: a systematic literature review. JMIR Hum Factors. 2015;2(1):e5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mussgnug M, Singer D, Lohmeyer Q, et al. Automated interpretation of eye-hand coordination in mobile eye tracking recordings. Künstl Intell. 2017;31(4):331–337.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner K. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychol Bull. 1998;124(3):372–422.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• König P, Wilming N, Kietzmann TC, et al. Eye movements as a window to cognitive processes. J Eye Movement Res. 2016;9(5):3,1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duchowski AT. A breadth-first survey of eye-tracking applications. Behav Res Meth Ins C. 2002;34(4):455–470.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bojko A. Eye tracking the user experience: a practical guide to research. Brooklyn, New York: Rosenfeld Media; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Dehoratius RJ, Brent LH, Curtis JR, et al. Satisfaction with subcutaneous golimumab and its auto-injector among rheumatoid arthritis patients with inadequate response to adalimumab or etanercept. Patient. 2018;11(3):361–369.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hudry C, Lebrun A, Bertrand M, et al. Evaluation of usability and acceptance of a new autoinjector intended for methotrexate subcutaneous self-administration in the management of rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatol Ther. 2017;4(1):183–194.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kivitz A, Segurado OG. HUMIRA® Pen: a novel autoinjection device for subcutaneous injection of the fully human monoclonal antibody adalimumab. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2007;4(2):109–116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Callis Duffin K, Bagel J, Bukhalo M, et al. Phase 3, open‐label, randomized study of the pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety of ixekizumab following subcutaneous administration using a prefilled syringe or an autoinjector in patients with moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis (UNCOVER‐A). J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017;31:107–113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matfin G, Van Brunt K, Zimmermann AG, et al. Safe and effective use of the once weekly dulaglutide single-dose pen in injection-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2015;9(5):1071–1079.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Andre AD, Brand-Schieber E, Ramirez M, et al. Subcutaneous sumatriptan delivery devices: comparative ease of use and preference among migraineurs. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2017;11:121–129.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfützner A, Forst T, Niemeyer M, et al. Assessment for ease of use and preference of a new prefilled insulin pen (FlexTouch Degludec U100/U200) versus the SoloSTAR insulin pen by patients with diabetes and healthcare professionals. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2014;11(9):1381–1389.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfützner A, Schipper C, Niemeyer M, et al. Comparison of patient preference for two insulin injection pen devices in relation to patient dexterity skills. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2012;6(4):910–916.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ahmann A, Szeinbach SL, Gill J, et al. Comparing patient preferences and healthcare provider recommendations with the pen versus vial-and-syringe insulin delivery in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2014;16(2):76–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lim WH, Chan D, Boudville N, et al. Patients’ perceptions of subcutaneous delivery of darbepoetin alfa by autoinjector prefilled pen versus prefilled syringe: a randomized, crossover study. Clin Ther. 2012;34(9):1948–1953.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mussgnug M, Waldern MF, Meboldt M, et al. Mobile eye tracking in usability testing: designers analysing the user-product interaction. In: Weber, editor. The 20th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED15). Glasgow: The Design Society; 2015. p. 349–358.
   Google Scholar
• Holmqvist K, Andra C, Lindström P, et al. A method for quantifying focused versus overview behavior in AOI sequences. Behav Res. 2011;43:987–998.
   Google Scholar
• Jacob RJK, Karn KS. Eye tracking in human-computer interaction and usability research: ready to deliver promises. In: Radach R, Hyona J, Deubel H, editors. The mind’s eye: cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2003. p. 573–605.
   Google Scholar
• Merchant RK, Inamdar R, Quade RC. Effectiveness of population health management using the propeller health asthma platform: a randomized clinical trial. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2016;4(3):455–463.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Danne T, Kordonouri O, Holder M, et al. Prevention of hypoglycemia by using low glucose suspend function in sensor-augmented pump therapy. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2011;13(11):1129–1134.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheung CC, Krahn AD, Andrade JG. The emerging role of wearable technologies in detection of arrhythmia. Can J Cardiol. 2018;34(8):1083–1087.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar