Influence of blister package design on usability among older adults

Mühlfeld, Lukas; Langguth, Peter; Häusler, Heribert; Hagels, Hansjörg

doi:10.1007/s11096-012-9643-1

Cited by 21 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…All but one study took place in the United States (Keram and Williams, 1988; Lovegrove et al, 2013; Massey and Shulman, 2006; Meyer and Schuna, 1989; Mrvos and Krenzelok, 2007; Rodgers, 1996; Rodgers, 2002). The non-US study took place in Germany (Muhlfeld et al, 2012). Four studies involved structured observations, where researchers assessed participants’ ability to open different types of packaging, using a test protocol (Keram and Williams, 1988; Lovegrove et al, 2013; Meyer and Schuna, 1989; Muhlfeld et al, 2012).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The non-US study took place in Germany (Muhlfeld et al, 2012). Four studies involved structured observations, where researchers assessed participants’ ability to open different types of packaging, using a test protocol (Keram and Williams, 1988; Lovegrove et al, 2013; Meyer and Schuna, 1989; Muhlfeld et al, 2012). The remaining four studies had an interrupted time series design, where the interruption was a policy or regulation related to special packaging (Massey and Shulman, 2006; Mrvos and Krenzelok, 2007; Rodgers, 1996; Rodgers, 2002).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The remaining four studies had an interrupted time series design, where the interruption was a policy or regulation related to special packaging (Massey and Shulman, 2006; Mrvos and Krenzelok, 2007; Rodgers, 1996; Rodgers, 2002). Three structured observational studies involved persons over the age of sixty (Keram and Williams, 1988; Meyer and Schuna, 1989; Muhlfeld et al, 2012), while one structured observational study involved children under the age of six (Lovegrove et al, 2013). All four interrupted time series studies involved children under six (Massey and Shulman, 2006; Mrvos and Krenzelok, 2007; Rodgers, 1996; Rodgers, 2002).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two studies failed to report when the study was conducted (Keram and Williams, 1988; Meyer and Schuna, 1989). Seven studies used non-probability sampling (Keram and Williams, 1988; Lovegrove et al, 2013; Massey and Shulman, 2006; Mrvos and Krenzelok, 2007; Rodgers, 1996; Rodgers, 2002; Muhlfeld et al, 2012), which limits our ability to draw conclusions about their respective target populations: children (Lovegrove et al, 2013) and the elderly for the structured observational studies and time periods for the interrupted time series studies (Keram and Williams, 1988; Mrvos and Krenzelok, 2007; Muhlfeld et al, 2012). One study failed to report study eligibility criteria (Muhlfeld et al, 2012).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…None of the studies discussed issues related to reliability, provided reliability estimates, or provided evidence of construct validity (Keram and Williams, 1988; Lovegrove et al, 2013; Massey and Shulman, 2006; Meyer and Schuna, 1989; Mrvos and Krenzelok, 2007; Rodgers, 1996; Rodgers, 2002; Muhlfeld et al, 2012). Other validity limitations included the lack of clear definitions of the type of packaging assessed (Keram and Williams, 1988) and the failure to use more than one measure to assess the dependent variable (Massey and Shulman, 2006; Meyer and Schuna, 1989; Mrvos and Krenzelok, 2007).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Child-resistant and tamper-resistant packaging: A systematic review to inform tobacco packaging regulation

Ambs

Dresler

et al. 2017

Preventive Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective We aimed to investigate the effects of special packaging (child-resistant, adult-friendly) and tamper-resistant packaging on health and behavioral outcomes in order to identify research gaps and implications for packaging standards for tobacco products. Methods We searched seven databases for keywords related to special and tamper-resistant packaging, consulted experts, and reviewed citations of potentially relevant studies. 733 unique papers were identified. Two coders independently screened each title and abstract for eligibility. They then reviewed the full text of the remaining papers for a second round of eligibility screening. Included studies investigated a causal relationship between type of packaging or packaging regulation and behavioral or health outcomes and had a study population composed of consumers. Studies were excluded on the basis of publication type, if they were not peer-reviewed, and if they had low external validity. Two reviewers independently coded each paper for study and methodological characteristics and limitations. Discrepancies were discussed and resolved. Results The review included eight studies: four assessing people’s ability to access the contents of different packaging types and four evaluating the impact of packaging requirements on health-related outcomes. Child-resistant packaging was generally more difficult to open than non-child-resistant packaging. Child-resistant packaging requirements have been associated with reductions in child mortality. Conclusions Child-resistant packaging holds the expectation to reduce tobacco product poisonings among children under six.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Child-resistant and tamper-resistant packaging: A systematic review to inform tobacco packaging regulation

Ambs

Dresler

et al. 2017

Preventive Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Critical Factors in Opening Pharmaceutical Packages: a Usability Study among Healthcare Workers, Women with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Elderly Women

Sormunen

Nevala

Sipilä

2013

Packag. Technol. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This cross-sectional study compared the usability of pharmaceutical packages to determine the critical factors involved in packages with different opening mechanisms. Four packaging types (a bottle with a screw cap, a box with a pill plate, disposable plastic droppers with a container and a jar with a hinge cap) were evaluated by 45 women (nurses, older women and women with rheumatoid arthritis). Usability was evaluated for subjective measures related to the ease of opening and for objective measures related to the time needed to open the packaging, electrical muscular activity (electromyography, EMG) and ranges of motion of the upper extremities.Of the arthritic women, 13% were unable to open the screw-cap bottle, and 20% did not succeed in opening the plastic dropper packaging. Everyone else, except one older woman handling the plastic dropper packaging, managed to open all the packages. Regarding the ease of opening, the participants gave the plastic dropper packaging the lowest rating (p < 0.001). The arthritic women used greater relative biomechanical strain while opening the screw cap bottle and the box with pill plate compared with the other participants (p < 0.05), with the relative muscular strain in the forearm varying by 29-40% for the maximal EMG activity and the relative range of motion in the wrist being 70-90% of the maximal range of motion.These findings revealed both subjectively and objectively measured features on the usability of pharmaceutical packages. The comprehensibility of the opening mechanism and the ease of handling the package should be considered when user-friendly products are being created.Package: A = bottle with a screw cap, B = box and its pill plate, C = disposable plastic dropper and its container, D = plastic container with a hinge cap.Values are means (standard deviations) of the ratings on a visual analogue scale (0 =

show abstract

Medication Packaging and Older Patients: A Systematic Review

Lorenzini

Hellström

2016

Packag Technol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The global challenges posed by demographic change call for more senior-friendly medication packaging. This paper presents a comprehensive integrated view and synthesis of the literature on medication packaging and older people. Considering the multidisciplinary nature of the research field, a systematic review was conducted in four databases (Scopus, Web of Science, Medline and Engineering Village), limited to original research studies containing empirical data and English-language papers, published until January 2015. Manual reference mining was carried out for other relevant papers, and a critical appraisal methodology was applied to judge the quality of the papers. In total, 34 studies are fully reviewed and classified according to the main characteristics of the studies, information about older patients and impact of the packaging on medication use. As a result, the review indicates the literature to be fragmented and diverse yet composed of two major interconnected research streams (physical functionality and user capability; medication management) and orientations (packaging; user). The physical functionality and user capability stream of research with a packaging orientation addresses child-resistant containers (CRCs), whereas the useroriented studies address openability, i.e. the ease of opening the medication. In contrast, the medication management stream of research with a packaging orientation focuses on the adherence outcomes of different package aids, whereas the user-oriented studies focus on the counselling provided by healthcare professionals and coping strategies for older patients to handle the packages. These original findings provide valuable input to researchers and practitioners and offer guidance for the further development of medication packaging.patients. According to Stegemann, 5 this '(…) means designing, developing and delivering drug products that patients can understand from the perspective of their health and wellbeing, as well as being able to manage and administer them properly'. In contrast, ranging from the social inclusivity of the aged adults to economic aspects related to healthcare costs, 6 the older population will require more healthcare expenditures, 1 including chronic disease therapies at the domiciliary level. 7 From a medication packaging point of view, these challenges draw attention to the development and design of more senior-friendly packages. Poor medication packaging can cause inconvenience, serious harm or even patient death. 8 In contrast, a patient-friendly medication package has the ability to improve medicine availability and dosing, 9 patient safety 8,10 and mobility. 11 In the development and design of senior-friendly packages, regulations must be fulfilled, and tradeoff decisions must be made. For instance, since the 1970s, there has been an ongoing debate regarding the dilemma of making medication packages safer for children 12 but still senior-friendly. 13,14 Additionally, the impact of packaging on medication use by seniors must be considered. As an e...

show abstract

Influence of blister package design on usability among older adults

Cited by 21 publications

References 11 publications

Child-resistant and tamper-resistant packaging: A systematic review to inform tobacco packaging regulation

Child-resistant and tamper-resistant packaging: A systematic review to inform tobacco packaging regulation

Critical Factors in Opening Pharmaceutical Packages: a Usability Study among Healthcare Workers, Women with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Elderly Women

Medication Packaging and Older Patients: A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About