IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v8y2015i2p145-153.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Intravenous versus Subcutaneous Drug Administration. Which Do Patients Prefer? A Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • Kelly Stoner
  • Helena Harder
  • Lesley Fallowfield
  • Valerie Jenkins

Abstract

Results suggest that patients prefer SC over IV delivery. Patient preference has clearly been neglected in clinical research, but it is important in medical decision making when choosing treatment methods as it has implications for adherence and quality of life. If the safety and efficacy of both administration routes are equivalent, then the most important factor should be patient preference as this will ensure optimal treatment adherence and ultimately improve patient experience or satisfaction. Future drug efficacy and safety studies should include contemporaneous, actual patient preference where possible, utilizing appropriate measures. Copyright Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Kelly Stoner & Helena Harder & Lesley Fallowfield & Valerie Jenkins, 2015. "Intravenous versus Subcutaneous Drug Administration. Which Do Patients Prefer? A Systematic Review," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(2), pages 145-153, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:8:y:2015:i:2:p:145-153
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-014-0075-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s40271-014-0075-y
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-014-0075-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ariane Kawata & Leah Kleinman & Gale Harding & Sulabha Ramachandran, 2014. "Evaluation of Patient Preference and Willingness to Pay for Attributes of Maintenance Medication for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(4), pages 413-426, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Daphne Broadhurst & Marie Cooke & Deepa Sriram & Brenda Gray, 2020. "Subcutaneous hydration and medications infusions (effectiveness, safety, acceptability): A systematic review of systematic reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-31, August.
    2. Han Geul Byun & Minyoung Jang & Hyun Kyeong Yoo & James Potter & Taek Sang Kwon, 2021. "Budget Impact Analysis of the Introduction of Subcutaneous Infliximab (CT-P13 SC) for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis in the United Kingdom," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 735-745, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Belen Machado & Pamela Quimbaya & Rosa-Helena Bustos & Diego Jaimes & Katherinne Cortes & Daniela Vargas & Laura Perdomo, 2024. "Assessment of Medication Adherence Using Mobile Applications in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 21(10), pages 1-14, September.
    2. Vikas Soekhai & Esther W. Bekker-Grob & Alan R. Ellis & Caroline M. Vass, 2019. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 201-226, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:8:y:2015:i:2:p:145-153. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.