Microarray patches as a potential alternative to injectable fertility medications: a qualitative study of patients’ and healthcare professionals’ perceptions
- 1SSPC, the Research Ireland Centre for Pharmaceuticals, School of Pharmacy, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
- 2School of Pharmacy, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
- 3Pharmaceutical Care Research Group, School of Pharmacy, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
Abstract
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.
Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-026-02220-1.
Related
- Perceptions of telemedicine and teledermatology among safety net patients, health care professionals, and clinical support staff.
- How healthcare professionals manage uncertainty around hormone replacement therapy (dis-)continuation: the TAPER qualitative Study
- Healthcare professionals' perceptions of managing psychological needs in palliative and end-of-life care: an All-Ireland mixed-methods survey.
- Exploring Medical Professionals’ Perspectives on Cannabinoid Use in Professional and Elite-Level Contact Sports: A Qualitative Inquiry
- Accessibility of essential medicines and vaccines among fisherfolk, artisanal miners and pastoralists in Mainland Tanzania: a qualitative study of barriers and strategies from the perspectives of healthcare professionals and community leaders.
BibTeX
@article{koenitz2026microarray,
title = {{Microarray patches as a potential alternative to injectable fertility medications: a qualitative study of patients’ and healthcare professionals’ perceptions}},
author = {Laura Koenitz and Megan Quigley and Abina Crean and Sonja Vucen and Michelle O’Driscoll},
journal = {International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.1007/s11096-026-02220-1},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-026-02220-1},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Microarray patches as a potential alternative to injectable fertility medications: a qualitative study of patients’ and healthcare professionals’ perceptions
AU - Laura Koenitz
AU - Megan Quigley
AU - Abina Crean
AU - Sonja Vucen
AU - Michelle O’Driscoll
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/23
JO - International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
DO - 10.1007/s11096-026-02220-1
UR - https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-026-02220-1
AB - 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. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-026-02220-1.
SN - 2210-7703
SN - 2210-7711
ER -