A post market observational study to evaluate user

Marie-Nathalie Castel; Yvonne Limpens; Octavio Rivera-Romero; Olga Rife; Sophie Berger; Ekaterina Koledova

doi:10.1530/endoabs.110.EP785

EP785

Prev Next

Section Contents Cite

Endocrine Abstracts (2025) 110 EP785 | DOI: 10.1530/endoabs.110.EP785

ECEESPE2025 ePoster Presentations Growth Axis and Syndromes (132 abstracts)

A post market observational study to evaluate user’s perception on technology acceptance and usability of two generations of digital devices to manage growth disorders across france and spain

Marie-Nathalie Castel ¹ , Yvonne Limpens ² , Octavio Rivera-Romero ³ , Olga Rife ⁴ , Sophie Berger ⁵ & Ekaterina Koledova ⁶

Author affiliations

¹Medical Devices Quality, Global Healthcare Operations, Ares Trading SA (an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany), Eysins, Switzerland; ²Emergo by UL Human Factors Research and Design, Emergo Europe Consulting BV, Arnhem, Netherlands; ³Electronic Technology Department, Universidad de Sevilla, Seville, Spain; ⁴Medical Affairs Department Endocrinology, Merck S.L.U. (an affiliate of Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany), Madrid, Spain; ⁵Medical Affairs Department Endocrinology, Merck Santé S.A.S. (an affiliate of Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany), Lyon, France; ⁶Global Medical Affairs, Cardiometabolic and Endocrinology, Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany

JOINT1312

Background: The Easypod® 3 auto-injector (Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany) is the “third generation” of Easypod® (used to administer recombinant human growth hormone treatment [Saizen®, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany]) and represents a technological evolution of its predecessor Easypod® 2. Easypod® 3 introduces new functionalities as well as ergonomics and enhances the user interface.

Objective: To compare the technology acceptance and usability of Easypod® 3 with those of Easypod® 2.

Methods: This post market ongoing observational study included 48 valid survey responses collected from France between September 13–November 21, 2024, and Spain between November 20–December 2, 2024 (aim is to collect at least 100 complete survey responses across both countries by early April 2025). Eligible study participants were Easypod® 2 users who recently (< 6 months ago) transitioned to Easypod® 3, and who used the Easypod® 3 to administer injections for at least 2 weeks. Participants completed an anonymous online survey comprised of 25 questions related to device usefulness, ease of use and usability based on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM, score ranged from 1–5 with 5 being the most positive response) and System Usability Scale (SUS, score range 0–100). Box design score was used to assess the facilitation of storing the device upright. Participants’ satisfactions were measured using a Net Promoter Score (NPS, range -100 to +100).

Results: Overall, responses from 48 participants (France [n = 34] and Spain [n = 14]) were analysed. Participants perceived Easypod® 3 to be very useful compared to Easypod® 2 with a mean TAM rating of 4.05 (France 3.91 vs Spain 4.37), and very easy to use with a mean TAM rating of 4.21 (France 4.13 vs Spain 4.41). Usability was rated excellent for Easypod® 3. with a mean SUS score of 81.46 (France 83.9 vs Spain 75.54). Participants preferred Easypod® 3’s box design for facilitating upright storage of the device with a mean rating of 3.85 (France 3.79 vs Spain 4). Overall, Easypod® 3 received a very high NPS of 65 (France 59 vs Spain 79).

Conclusions: This interim analysis suggests that users’ perceptions of Easypod® 3 from both technology acceptance and usability perspectives are overall positive compared to their perceptions of its predecessor Easypod® 2. The study will continue till 100 complete survey responses across both countries are received.