International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026
Microarray patches as a potential alternative to injectable fertility medications: a qualitative study of patients' and healthcare professionals' perceptions.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Koenitz Laura, Quigley Megan, Crean Abina, Vucen Sonja, O'Driscoll Michelle
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Many fertility treatments require regular injections that can impact patients' everyday lives. Transdermal delivery may reduce the treatment burden, but physical and biochemical barriers of the skin limit the drugs' bioavailability. Microarray patches (MAPs) present a novel formulation option that helps delivering medicines through the skin. Their administration is perceived to be straightforward and patient-friendly; however, existing acceptability studies have largely focused on MAP-based vaccination.
AIM: This study aimed to investigate patients', partners' and healthcare professionals' experiences of fertility injections, and to explore their perspectives on potential MAP use and key factors for optimal user acceptance in fertility care.
METHOD: A qualitative interview study was conducted in Ireland between September 2025 and January 2026. Patients, partners and healthcare professionals (including nurses, pharmacists, midwives and consultants) were eligible to participate. Interviewees were recruited by convenience sampling through researchers' networks, advertisement on social media and targeted outreach to fertility clinics. Semi-structured interviews followed a topic guide. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim and transcripts analysed using Braun and Clarke's reflexive thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Twenty-two participants (n=10 patients/n=1 partner, n=11 healthcare professionals) of varying age, professional/educational background, residential/practise location, and experience with fertility care were interviewed. Five key themes emerged: (1) The complexity of administration-drug and formulation considerations; (2) The importance of support systems-partners, peers, and healthcare professionals; (3) Managing expectations-medicine information and treatment outcome; (4) Making it work-logistical and lifestyle adjustments; and (5) Education and training-healthcare professionals and patients. Participants highlighted patients' hopes for treatment success and their resilience to endure practical and emotional challenges like reconstituting injectables, sharps disposal, and fear of mistakes. While MAPs could enhance treatment experiences, they should meet important acceptability criteria including straightforward use, flexible dosing, room temperature storage, minimal pain and skin reactions, comparable efficiency and cost to injectables, and comprehensive counselling.
CONCLUSION: This study highlighted the potential positive impact of MAPs on the unique practical and emotional challenges of fertility patients. The findings will help to inform next steps in exploring MAP-based fertility treatments but also have implications for the development of future fertility injectables.
AIM: This study aimed to investigate patients', partners' and healthcare professionals' experiences of fertility injections, and to explore their perspectives on potential MAP use and key factors for optimal user acceptance in fertility care.
METHOD: A qualitative interview study was conducted in Ireland between September 2025 and January 2026. Patients, partners and healthcare professionals (including nurses, pharmacists, midwives and consultants) were eligible to participate. Interviewees were recruited by convenience sampling through researchers' networks, advertisement on social media and targeted outreach to fertility clinics. Semi-structured interviews followed a topic guide. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim and transcripts analysed using Braun and Clarke's reflexive thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Twenty-two participants (n=10 patients/n=1 partner, n=11 healthcare professionals) of varying age, professional/educational background, residential/practise location, and experience with fertility care were interviewed. Five key themes emerged: (1) The complexity of administration-drug and formulation considerations; (2) The importance of support systems-partners, peers, and healthcare professionals; (3) Managing expectations-medicine information and treatment outcome; (4) Making it work-logistical and lifestyle adjustments; and (5) Education and training-healthcare professionals and patients. Participants highlighted patients' hopes for treatment success and their resilience to endure practical and emotional challenges like reconstituting injectables, sharps disposal, and fear of mistakes. While MAPs could enhance treatment experiences, they should meet important acceptability criteria including straightforward use, flexible dosing, room temperature storage, minimal pain and skin reactions, comparable efficiency and cost to injectables, and comprehensive counselling.
CONCLUSION: This study highlighted the potential positive impact of MAPs on the unique practical and emotional challenges of fertility patients. The findings will help to inform next steps in exploring MAP-based fertility treatments but also have implications for the development of future fertility injectables.