4.4 Article

Patient Perceptions of Injection Pain and Anxiety: A Comparison of NovoFine 32-Gauge Tip 6mm and Micro Fine Plus 31-Gauge 5mm Needles

期刊

DIABETES TECHNOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 81-86

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/dia.2008.0027

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Injecting insulin may cause pain and anxiety and lead to suboptimal treatment of diabetes mellitus. The aim of this randomized, open-label, crossover study was to compare two types of needle design and diameter in patients with diabetes injecting insulin. Methods: Patients with diabetes injecting insulin twice daily for at least 3 months were included. A NovoFine (R) (Novo Nordisk, Bagsverd, Denmark) 32-gauge tip 6mm tapered needle and a Micro Fine Plus (R) (Nippon Becton Dickinson Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) 31-gauge 5mm standard needle were compared. Patients were randomized to use one needle for 1 week, followed by the alternative needle for another week. Before and after each week patients completed a 14-item questionnaire assessing overall satisfaction and usability of the needles. Each item was scored on a visual analog scale from -100 (worst) to +100 (best). Results: Thirty patients (24 men, six women) took part in this study: 24 with type 2 diabetes and six with latent autoimmune diabetes in adults. The mean +/- SD for age was 57.8 +/- 7.6 years, for body mass index was 23.0 +/- 3.1 kg/m(2), for duration of diabetes was 15.6 +/- 9.8 years, and for mean glycated hemoglobin was 7.1 +/- 1.1%. Patients were more satisfied with the use of NovoFine 32-gauge tip 6mm needles (P < 0.0001.), found the needles less frightening (P < 0.05) and less painful (P < 0.01), and caused less frequent bleeding and bruising (P < 0.001) than Micro Fine Plus 31-gauge 5mm needles. Conclusions: These results suggest that the diameter and design of the needle play an important role in reducing injection pain and needle anxiety, which is particularly important for insulin initiation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据