The SmartClic®/ClicWise® autoinjector is a new reusable, multi-use, single-patient device for the administration of subcutaneously administered biologics in the treatment of chronic conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis. The device will be used in conjunction with a mobile application (app). The aim of this study was to collect feedback on the usability, functionality, and applicability of the device and the companion app from health care professionals (HCPs) who perform injections as part of their role and care for patients with rheumatic conditions.
The study was conducted from September to October 2020 in Germany. HCPs participated in a training session for the device and gained experience by performing simulated injections with water. Following the simulations, HCPs answered questions on the ease of use, feature design, effectiveness, and injection speed of the SmartClic/ClicWise device and estimate the patient training time required. They also answered questions on the functionality of the proposed app after attending a storyboard presentation. Responses were recorded as multiple-choice answers, Likert scale ratings (seven-point scale), or open-ended comments. The mean, median, and mode scores were recorded.
Twenty-five HCPs (mean age, 38.2 years; females, n = 22 [88%]; registered nurses, n = 19 [76%]) participated in the study. HCP feedback on questions related to the SmartClic/ClicWise device was positive overall, with mean scores > 4.50 across questions; mean scores < 5.00 were reported on 2/40 questions. Twenty-four of 25 participants (96%) estimated that a training time of ≤ 20 min would suffice for patients learning to use the device. Positive feedback was also reported on questions related to the companion app, with mean scores > 5.70.
Initial feedback from HCPs on the SmartClic/ClicWise device and proposed app was generally favorable, suggesting they will provide an acceptable alternative for self-administration of biologics for patients with rheumatoid arthritis and other chronic conditions.
Why carry out this study?
Many patients with chronic conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis have limited mobility and dexterity in their hands and need acceptable devices for self-administration of biologics.
This study collected feedback from health care professionals (HCPs) on the usability, functionality, and acceptance of the SmartClic®/ClicWise® device and its associated mobile application.
What was learned from this study?
Favorable responses were received from HCPs on the ease of use, feature design, effectiveness, and injection speed of the SmartClic/ClicWise device and functionality of the mobile application.
The SmartClic/ClicWise device is an acceptable alternative for self-administration of biologics for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and other conditions. Further study is needed in patients who will be using the device to confirm the findings.
This article is published with digital features, including a plain language summary, to facilitate understanding of the article. To view digital features for this article go to https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21816207.
Inadequate adherence to treatment in patients with chronic diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) can have a critical impact on treatment effectiveness and utilization of healthcare resources [1, 2]. Adherence may be enhanced by patients’ ability to self-administer medication, which allows them greater freedom, control, and independence in many aspects of their lives [3,4,5]. Self-administration of biologic therapy in patients with RA has also been associated with improved clinical, functional, and quality-of-life outcomes . However, self-injection may be particularly challenging for patients with rheumatic diseases such as RA because they frequently experience mobility and dexterity problems [7,8,9,10,11,12]. Psychological barriers to self-injection may also lessen gains in adherence associated with self-administration of treatment. Fear of injection and injection pain are very common in individuals with type 1 diabetes and can result in skipped insulin injections and adverse treatment outcomes [13,14,15,16,17,18,19]. Very high pain catastrophizing scores have been reported in one-quarter of patients with RA or spondyloarthritis treated with biologics, which could jeopardize adherence with self-administration and treatment response .
To improve patients’ adherence to and experience with treatment, several devices have been developed for the self-administration of biologics by subcutaneous injection, including the single-dose vial with syringe, prefilled syringes, prefilled pen injectors/autoinjectors, and electromechanical injection devices (e.g., ava Connect®, AutoTouch®) [21,22,23]. In patients with RA, autoinjectors have been preferred over prefilled syringes due to ease of use, portability, and convenience, particularly in patients with impaired manual dexterity [4, 24, 25]. Other important features of these devices in rheumatic diseases include manageable size and weight, and convenient shape .
Although single-use, disposable, spring-loaded autoinjectors improved the ease of self-administration of medications, research has shown that challenges remained for patients using these devices [27,28,29], leading to exploration of potential alternatives that would improve the injection experience and adherence. Recently, electromechanical injection devices have been developed that are reusable and offer enhanced technical features compared with the previous generation of prefilled pen injectors/autoinjectors .
A new electromechanical presentation for subcutaneously administered biologics, the SmartClic®/ClicWise® autoinjector (manufactured by PHC Corporation, Toon City, Japan), has recently been developed for use primarily by patients, but also by caregivers and health care professionals (HCPs) (Fig. S1). This reusable, multi-use, single-patient injection device includes a prominent graphical user interface display with text, animated action illustrations, arrows, and visual confirmation feedback designed to simplify and inform the autoinjection experience. The device is used with disposable dose dispenser cartridges (DDCs) that are loaded into the device with each new dose. In addition, an optional mobile application (app) is proposed for use with the device that will allow patients to track their injection schedule, record symptoms, and export data to smartphones and computers. The aim of the present study was to examine the impressions and opinions of HCPs who evaluated the ease of use, feature design, effectiveness, and injection speed of the SmartClic/ClicWise device, as well as the functionality of the device’s proposed mobile app.
Licensed HCPs (registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, licensed vocational nurses, certified nursing assistants, medical doctors, doctors of osteopathic medicine, and physician assistants) were eligible to participate in the study if they were ≥ 18 years of age, cared for patients with rheumatologic/rheumatic conditions, and were experienced at administering injections. All HCPs who participated in this study also participated in a ‘Sharps Injury Prevention Study’ for the SmartClic/ClicWise autoinjection device that was conducted immediately beforehand (and required for regulatory submission of the device). The HCPs were blinded to the sponsor of the study as well as the medicines intended to be used with the device.
This study and the aforementioned Sharps Injury Prevention (SIP) Study were conducted by Design Science at the Schlesinger Group market research facility in Munich, Germany, from September 28 to October 8, 2020. Prior to their enrollment in the Sharps Injury Prevention Study, HCPs were screened via telephone interview to determine whether they satisfied eligibility criteria. During that 30-min study, eligible participants watched a 5-min visual demonstration of how to properly use the SmartClic/ClicWise device and DDCs and subsequently performed 20 simulated injections into injection pads using DDCs filled with water during a 25-min hands-on test period.
Following the SIP study injection simulations, as part of the current study, participants answered general background questions from the moderator and completed a two-part, paper-based questionnaire. The first section of the questionnaire included questions on the HCPs’ experience in treating rheumatology patients and using injection devices; the second section included questions on various aspects of the SmartClic/ClicWise device. The moderator subsequently presented the proposed app (in development) to the HCPs using a storyboard and asked questions regarding how the participant perceived its planned functionality.
Participant responses were recorded as multiple-choice selections, Likert scale ratings, or open-ended comments as appropriate. The Likert scale is a psychometric scale that uses scaling responses . This study used a seven-point scale for participants to express how much they agreed or disagreed with a particular statement. Participants were asked to provide scores on the following topics: (1) ease of use of the device (28 questions): scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree); (2) features of the device (six questions): scale from 1 (not beneficial) to 7 (extremely beneficial); (3) effectiveness of the device (two questions): scale from 1 (not effective at all) to 7 (extremely effective); (4) injection speed of the device (four questions): scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree); (5) training time: multiple-choice question; and (6) functionality of the app (12 questions): scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Research instrument design, participant recruitment, compensation, consent, data handling, data privacy and volunteers’ statements were handled following Design Science’s human factors standard operating procedures. Participants consented to participate in testing the device and having their data analyzed. All participants have received compensation for their participation within 'fair market value' rules.
All data were anonymized, and each participating HCP was assigned a unique identification number that was stored in a secure, password-protected file accessible only by Design Science Group. Participant responses that involved a Likert scale were reported as mean, median, and mode scores.
A total of 25 HCPs participated in the study, 22 (88%) of whom were female and 19 (76%) of whom were registered nurses (Tables 1, 2). The most common specialties reported were intensive care, emergency room, orthopedics, and surgery; the most common rheumatologic condition of patients cared for by the participants was RA. Five HCPs (20%) treated rheumatology patients at least weekly (daily: n = 1 [4%]; every few days: n = 2 [8%]; weekly: n = 2 [8%]), and 20 (80%) did not treat rheumatology patients frequently (rarely: n = 12 [48%]; every couple of weeks: n = 7 [28%]; monthly: n = 1 [4%]). All 25 (100%) of the HCPs reported having experience with administering injections, although only five (20%) reported experience with injecting biologics (< 10% of injections: n = 4; ~ 25% of injections: n = 1) (Table 2).
HCP Feedback on the SmartClic/ClicWise Device
HCP feedback on the ease of use, feature design, effectiveness, and injection speed of the SmartClic/ClicWise device was positive, with mean scores > 4.50 for all questions (Figs. 1, 2). Of note, the device received very favorable scores for being easy to learn how to use, being safe to handle, and having effective audio and visual feedback during and after the injection. Mean scores < 5.00 were only reported on two of the 40 questions. Table S1 includes all mean, median, and mode scores for the HCP feedback on the SmartClic/ClicWise device.
Twenty-four (96%) of the HCPs considered a training time of ≤ 20 min to be sufficient to train patients on how to effectively use the injection device (Fig. 3). All 25 (100%) of the HCPs thought that training would be required, and none thought it would require > 30 min. Open-ended comments regarding the device and its features were provided by 21 (84%) of the HCPs, with 11 (44%) commenting that they felt the device was intuitive, safe, and easy to use, and 10 (40%) commenting that the device was large or heavy.
HCP Feedback on the Optional App
HCP feedback on the companion app, presented via storyboard, was positive, with mean scores > 5.70 for all questions (Fig. 4). The highest mean scores for the evaluation of the functionality of the app were for its injection reminder function and the record for the injection site used. The mean, median, and mode scores for the HCP feedback on the app are included in Table S1.
Open-ended comments regarding the app were provided by 11 of the HCPs. Comments included that older patients may not use smartphones or apps (n = 5), the app would be useful (n = 4), and the app should be made as simple as possible to aid patient compliance (n = 2).
The results from this study involving 25 HCPs showed positive feedback on the ease of use, feature design, effectiveness, and injection speed of the SmartClic/ClicWise device and planned functionality of its associated optional app. Mean scores on the seven-point Likert scale employed in this study were > 4.5 for all 52 questions on the device and companion app. The combined mean scores for the three categories of questions were 6.0 for ease of use of the device, 6.3 for features and effectiveness of the device, and 6.1 for functionality of the app. Overall, the scores obtained indicate that the HCPs gave strongly positive feedback on the SmartClic/ClicWise device and companion app. HCP feedback also indicated a high likelihood that they would recommend the device and app to their patients and colleagues.
Some inconsistencies were observed between the mean Likert scale scores and the comments provided by the participants. For example, ten HCPs commented that the device was large or heavy for patients, but the mean scores for size (5.28), weight (5.68), comfortable to hold/does not slip (5.60), and easy to grip (5.56) do not reflect these comments. One possible explanation is that most participants performed injections in acute settings using disposable devices. HCPs were responding using the Likert scale based on their evaluation compared with such devices, while the comments were indicating their thoughts on how the device can be improved and their preferences.
HCP mean Likert scale scores on the companion app were also high (> 5.70), but several HCPs questioned the suitability of the app for use by older patients who may not own a smartphone. Well-designed mobile health apps can be an effective tool for empowering patients with chronic conditions to self-manage their health [31,32,33]. On the other hand, in a 2019 cross-sectional survey of primary care patients seen in a publicly funded clinic in the United States, Kumar et al. reported that only 45% of participants ≥ 50 years of age owned a smartphone . Furthermore, older participants were less likely than younger participants to use their phones for online browsing, social media, or apps. However, it should be noted that the companion mobile app for the SmartClic/ClicWise device is an optional feature, i.e., app use is not required with the device.
A strength of this study is the use of a Likert scale, which allows for the collection of quantitative data representing degrees of opinion rather than binary ‘yes or no’ answers. The study also has some limitations. The sample size of HCPs (n = 25) participating in the study was relatively small, and although all participants were very experienced and knowledgeable about administering injections, they may not have been very familiar with the specific challenges faced by patients with rheumatic disease or with the administration of biologics. In addition, the study was a non-comparator study that did not explore HCP opinions relative to different autoinjector devices. However, participants were selected based on their experience with injection administration and were expected to consider this experience while evaluating the SmartClic/ClicWise device. The omission of ‘15 min’ as a response option for the multiple-choice question about the estimated training time required was another limitation, and HCPs’ estimates of patient training time may have been biased by their own experience and intuition. Finally, the mobile app was presented to participants via storyboard (rather than live demonstration), as the app was not fully developed at the time the study was conducted.
All of the HCPs’ scores for the device and app were included in the data analysis. Although most scores were favorable for the device, some individual scores appeared near the lower end of the Likert scale. For example, most HCPs strongly agreed that keeping the needle concealed throughout the injection process was an effective device feature (score: ‘7’). However, one participant (a cardiosurgical intensive care nurse) strongly disliked this feature (score: ‘1’), indicating that she preferred to see the needle when administering an injection.
In conclusion, HCPs reported a high level of usability, functionality, and acceptance of the SmartClic/ClicWise device and the companion app. Further studies are warranted to assess patients’ opinions, and one large patient study is currently underway. However, initial HCP perceptions suggest that the novel SmartClic/ClicWise autoinjector will provide patients with an acceptable alternative for self-administration of therapeutics for the management of RA and other conditions.
van den Bemt BJ, Zwikker HE, van den Ende CH. Medication adherence in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a critical appraisal of the existing literature. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2012;8:337–51.
Marengo MF, Suarez-Almazor ME. Improving treatment adherence in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: what are the options? Int J Clin Rheumtol. 2015;10:345–56.
Larsson I, Bergman S, Fridlund B, Arvidsson B. Patients’ independence of a nurse for the administration of subcutaneous anti-TNF therapy: a phenomenographic study. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. 2010;5:5146.
Kivitz A, Cohen S, Dowd JE, et al. Clinical assessment of pain, tolerability, and preference of an autoinjection pen versus a prefilled syringe for patient self-administration of the fully human, monoclonal antibody adalimumab: the TOUCH trial. Clin Ther. 2006;28:1619–29.
Keininger D, Coteur G. Assessment of self-injection experience in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: psychometric validation of the Self-Injection Assessment Questionnaire (SIAQ). Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011;9:2.
Schulze-Koops H, Giacomelli R, Samborski W, et al. Factors influencing the patient evaluation of injection experience with the SmartJect autoinjector in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2015;33:201–8.
Poole JL. Hand function in rheumatoid arthritis. In: Duruöz MT, editor. Hand function: a practical guide to assessment. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2019. p. 73–82.
Sparks JA. Rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170:Itc1–16.
Englbrecht M, Kruckow M, Araujo E, Rech J, Schett G. The interaction of physical function and emotional well-being in rheumatoid arthritis–what is the impact on disease activity and coping? Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2013;42:482–91.
Taylor PC, Moore A, Vasilescu R, Alvir J, Tarallo M. A structured literature review of the burden of illness and unmet needs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a current perspective. Rheumatol Int. 2016;36:685–95.
Dures E, Hewlett S, Lord J, Bowen C, McHugh N, Tillett W. Important treatment outcomes for patients with psoriatic arthritis: a multisite qualitative study. Patient. 2017;10:455–62.
Protopopov M, Sieper J, Haibel H, Listing J, Rudwaleit M, Poddubnyy D. Relevance of structural damage in the sacroiliac joints for the functional status and spinal mobility in patients with axial spondyloarthritis: results from the German Spondyloarthritis Inception Cohort. Arthritis Res Ther. 2017;19:240.
Mollema ED, Snoek FJ, Pouwer F, Heine RJ, van der Ploeg HM. Diabetes fear of injecting and Self-Testing Questionnaire: a psychometric evaluation. Diabetes Care. 2000;23:765–9.
Nir Y, Paz A, Sabo E, Potasman I. Fear of injections in young adults: prevalence and associations. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2003;68:341–4.
Fu AZ, Qiu Y, Radican L. Impact of fear of insulin or fear of injection on treatment outcomes of patients with diabetes. Curr Med Res Opin. 2009;25:1413–20.
Al Hayek AA, Robert AA, Babli S, Almonea K, Al Dawish MA. Fear of self-injecting and self-testing and the related risk factors in adolescents with type 1 diabetes: a cross-sectional study. Diabetes Ther. 2017;8:75–83.
Patton SR, Eder S, Schwab J, Sisson CM. Survey of insulin site rotation in youth with type 1 diabetes mellitus. J Pediatr Health Care. 2010;24:365–71.
Peyrot M, Rubin RR, Kruger DF, Travis LB. Correlates of insulin injection omission. Diabetes Care. 2010;33:240–5.
Olamoyegun MA, Akinlade AT, Ala OA. Audit of insulin prescription patterns and associated burden among diabetics in a tertiary health institution in Nigeria. Afr Health Sci. 2018;18:852–64.
Penhoat M, Saraux A, Le Goff B, Augereau P, Maugars Y, Berthelot JM. High pain catastrophizing scores in one-fourth of patients on biotherapy for spondylarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis. Jt Bone Spine. 2014;81:235–9.
van den Bemt BJF, Gettings L, Domańska B, Bruggraber R, Mountian I, Kristensen LE. A portfolio of biologic self-injection devices in rheumatology: how patient involvement in device design can improve treatment experience. Drug Deliv. 2019;26:384–92.
Amgen. Enbrel (etanercept) Prescribing Information. Thousand Oaks: Immunex Corporation. https://www.pi.amgen.com/~/media/amgen/repositorysites/pi-amgen-com/enbrel/enbrel_pi.pdf Accessed 1 Oct 2021.
UCB. UCB Gains CE Mark for ava Connect®, a first-in-class electromechanical device for use with biologic treatment in rheumatology and dermatology. https://www.ucb.com/_up/ucb_com_presscenter/documents/9f824e6514d6f16e.pdf. Accessed 1 Oct 2021.
Demary W, Schwenke H, Rockwitz K, et al. Subcutaneously administered methotrexate for rheumatoid arthritis, by prefilled syringes versus prefilled pens: patient preference and comparison of the self-injection experience. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2014;8:1061–71.
Borrás-Blasco J, Gracia-Pérez A, Rosique-Robles JD, Casterá MD, Abad FJ. Acceptability of switching adalimumab from a prefilled syringe to an autoinjection pen. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2010;10:301–7.
Tischer B, Mehl A. Patients’ and nurses’ preferences for autoinjectors for rheumatoid arthritis: results of a European survey. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2018;12:1413–24.
Bolge SC, Goren A, Tandon N. Reasons for discontinuation of subcutaneous biologic therapy in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a patient perspective. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2015;9:121–31.
Gandell DL, Bienen EJ, Gudeman J. Mode of injection and treatment adherence: results of a survey characterizing the perspectives of health care providers and US women 18–45 years old. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2019;13:351–61.
Salaffi F, Di Carlo M, Farah S, Carotti M. Adherence to subcutaneous anti-TNFα agents in patients with rheumatoid arthritis is largely influenced by pain and skin sensations at the injection site. Int J Rheum Dis. 2020;23:480–7.
Joshi A, Kale S, Chandel S, Pal DK. Likert Scale: explored and explained. Curr J Appl Sci Technol. 2015;7:396–403.
Lee JA, Choi M, Lee SA, Jiang N. Effective behavioral intervention strategies using mobile health applications for chronic disease management: a systematic review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2018;18:12.
Salimzadeh Z, Damanabi S, Kalankesh LR, Ferdousi R. Mobile applications for multiple sclerosis: a focus on self-management. Acta Inform Med. 2019;27:12–8.
Mahmood A, Kedia S, Wyant DK, Ahn S, Bhuyan SS. Use of mobile health applications for health-promoting behavior among individuals with chronic medical conditions. Digit Health. 2019;5:2055207619882181.
Kumar D, Hemmige V, Kallen MA, Giordano TP, Arya M. Mobile phones may not bridge the digital divide: a look at mobile phone literacy in an underserved patient population. Cureus. 2019;11: e4104.
The authors would like to thank Tabea Schießl, MS, and Katherine Coughlin, formerly of Design Science Group, for their valuable contributions to this study and manuscript development.
This study, and the journal’s Rapid Service Fee, were sponsored by Pfizer.
Medical Writing Assistance
Medical writing support for this manuscript was provided by David Wateridge, Ph.D., and Donna McGuire of Engage Scientific Solutions and was funded by Pfizer.
All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this article, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, and have given their approval for this version to be published.
All authors were involved in the writing and reviewing process and interpreting the data, and all have read and approved this manuscript.
Rieke Alten declares receiving research grants and honoraria from AbbVie, BMS, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, and Pfizer. Simon Moss, Stefanie Hahne, David Gruben, and Mark Latymer are employees of Pfizer and hold stock and/or stock options with Pfizer. Angela T. Muriset is an employee of Design Science Group, which received payment from Pfizer for the design and execution of this study.
Compliance with Ethics Guidelines
Research instrument design, participant recruitment, compensation, consent, data handling, data privacy and volunteers’ statements were handled following Design Science’s human factors standard operating procedures (data on file, Design Science Group, Evanston, IL, USA). Participants consented to participate in testing the device and having their data analyzed and published in medical journals. All participants have received compensation for their participation within 'fair market value' rules.
Upon request, and subject to review, Pfizer will provide the data that support the findings of this study. Subject to certain criteria, conditions, and exceptions, Pfizer may also provide access to the related individual de-identified participant data. See https://www.pfizer.com/science/clinical-trials/trial-data-and-results for more information.
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Alten, R., Moss, S., Hahne, S. et al. High Usability and Applicability Ratings for the New SmartClic®/ClicWise® Injection Device: Evidence from a Health Care Professional Opinion Study. Rheumatol Ther 10, 477–487 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40744-022-00520-2
- Mobile application
- Rheumatoid arthritis
- Human factors