The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10875-018-0566-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
This study aims to evaluate home-based treatment with immunoglobulin (IgG) by assessing and comparing the experiences and perceived value of patients and healthcare professionals, and potential differences in experiences between subcutaneous (SCIg) and intravenous (IVIg) modes of administration. As choices on the location and type of treatment are determined in a shared decision-making process, we evaluated the home-based treatment from the perspectives of both patients and professionals.
A questionnaire study was conducted among 205 patients, 44 informal caregivers, 43 hospital professionals, and 21 nurses of the Sanquin Home Service (SHS) that provides home treatment with immunoglobulins in the Netherlands. Experiences, perceived benefits, and effects on the patients’ quality of life and overall ratings were assessed.
Both patients and professionals were predominantly positive about the home treatment, irrespective of the administration mode. The home-based treatment with Ig contributed to the patients’ autonomy, participation, and perceived health. Patients and informal caregivers valued the treatment with a global rating of 8.84, and professionals with 8.32 (on a scale from 0 “worst” to 10 “best possible care”). SCIg and IVIg patient groups differed in their experiences regarding the accessibility and communication of the home treatment service. Furthermore, hospital professionals reported lower effects on quality of life than patients themselves.
Home-based treatment with immunoglobulins is highly valued because of its personalized and effective character, meeting the needs and preferences of patients. Nonetheless, patients and professionals do have different perspectives on the value of this type of care.
Chapel HM, Spickett GP, Ericson D, Engl W, Eibl MM, Bjorkander J. The comparison of the efficacy and safety of intravenous versus subcutaneous immunoglobulin replacement therapy. J Clin Immunol. 2000;20(2):94–100. CrossRef
Torgerson TR. Overview of routes of IgG administration. J Clin Immunol. 2013;33(2):87–9. CrossRef
Samaan K, Levasseur MC, Decaluwe H, St-Cyr C, Chapdelaine H, Des Roches A, et al. SCIg vs IVIg: let’s give patients the choice! J Clin Immunol. 2014;34(6):611–4. CrossRef
Kittner JM, Grimbacher B, Wulff W, Jäger B, Schmidt RE. Patients’ attitude to subcutaneous immunoglobulin substitution as home therapy. J Clin Immunol. 2006;26(4):400–5. CrossRef
Haddad É, Barnes D, Kafal A. Home therapy with subcutaneous immunoglobulins for patients with primary immunodeficiency diseases. Transfus Apher Sci. 2012;46(3):315–21. CrossRef
Gardulf A, Borte M, Ochs HD, Nicolay U, Vivaglobin Clinical Study Group. Prognostic factors for health-related quality of life in adults and children with primary antibody deficiencies receiving SCIG home therapy. Clin Immunol. 2008;126(1):81–8. CrossRef
Gardulf A, Nicolay U, Asensio O, Bernatowska E, Böck A, Costa-Carvalho BT, et al. Children and adults with primary antibody deficiencies gain quality of life by subcutaneous IgG self-infusions at home. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004;114(4):936–42. CrossRef
Nicolay U, Kiessling P, Berger M, Gupta S, Yel L, et al. Health-related quality of life and treatment satisfaction in North American patients with primary immunedeficiency diseases receiving subcutaneous IgG self-infusions at home. J Clin Immunol. 2006;26(1):65–72. CrossRef
Gardulf A, Bjorvell H, Andersen V, Bjorkander J, Ericson D, Froland SS, et al. Lifelong treatment with gammaglobulin for primary antibody deficiencies: the patients’ experiences of subcutaneous self-infusions and home therapy. J Adv Nurs. 1995;21(5):917–27. CrossRef
Chapel H, Gardulf A. Subcutaneous immunoglobulin replacement therapy: the European experience. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2013;13(6):623–9. CrossRef
Šedivá A, Chapel H, Gardulf A. Europe immunoglobulin map. Clin Exp Immunol. 2013;178(S1):141–3.
Katzberg HD, Rasutis V, Bril V. Home IVIG for CIDP: a focus on patient centred care. Can J Neurol Sci. 2013;40(03):384–8. CrossRef
Daly PB, Evans JH, Kobayashi RH, Kobayashi AL, Ochs HD, Fischer SH, et al. Home-based immunoglobulin infusion therapy: quality of life and patient health perceptions. Ann Allergy. 1991;67(5):504–10. PubMed
Sorensen RU, Kallick MD, Berger M. Home treatment of antibody-deficiency syndromes with intravenous immune globulin. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1987;80(6):810–5. CrossRef
Triemstra M, Kessel van P, Batenburg R, Dijk van L, Plass A. Sanquin Home Service: an evaluation. Netherlands institute for health services research. Report (in Dutch). 2015. https://www.nivel.nl/sites/default/files/bestanden/10_jaar_Sanquin_ThuisService_evaluatie.pdf. Accessed: 30 October, 2018.
Beatty PC, Willis GB. Research synthesis: the practice of cognitive interviewing. Public Opin Q. 1987;71(2):287–311. CrossRef
Krol MW, de Boer D, Delnoij DM, Rademakers JJDJM. The Net Promoter Score – an asset to patient experience surveys? Health Expect. 2014;18:3099–109. CrossRef
- Home-Based Treatment with Immunoglobulins: an Evaluation from the Perspective of Patients and Healthcare Professionals
Chantal A. Zuizewind
Paul van Kessel
Christine M. Kramer
Mary M. Muijs
Janneke C. Zwiers
- Springer US
Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin
Meistgelesene Bücher aus der Inneren Medizin
Mail Icon II