Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27381448›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2016

Systematic review of the health and societal effects of medication organisation devices.

Steven James Watson, Clare Frances Aldus, Christine Bond, Debi Bhattacharya

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Barriers and Facilitators to Medicines Use in Patients With Vision Impairment: A Theory-Informed Qualitative Study of Patients and Caregivers.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Stability of repackaged dabigatran etexilate capsules in dose administration aids.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2018
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Steven James WatsonDepartment of Psychology, Fylde College, Lancaster University, Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA1 4YF, UK.
Clare Frances AldusSchool of Health Sciences, Edith Cavell Building, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norfolk, NR4 7TJ, UK.
Christine BondCentre of Academic Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, UK.
Debi BhattacharyaSchool of Pharmacy, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norfolk, NR4 7TJ, UK. d.bhattacharya@uea.ac.uk.
Lancaster University · GBNorwich Research Park · GBUniversity of Aberdeen · GBUniversity of East Anglia · GB

Funding

Department of Health 09/34/03
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSuboptimal medication adherence is a significant threat to public health and resources. Devices that organise weekly doses by time and day are commonly used to reduce unintentional non-adherence. However, there is limited evidence to support their use. This systematic review was conducted to evaluate current evidence for their efficacy, safety and costs.

methodsA pre-defined search of electronic databases from inception to January 2013 augmented with hand-searching was conducted. No limits were placed on publication date. Studies that compared organisation devices used by patients administering their own medication with standard medication packaging regardless of study design were eligible for inclusion. Studies that solely explored dispensing aspects of organisation devices were included whether or not they compared this to standard care. Screening of articles for inclusion and data extraction were completed independently by two reviewers with disagreements resolved by discussion. Outcomes were categorised into impact on health, medication adherence, healthcare utilisation, dispensing errors, supply procedures and costs. Risk of bias was also assessed.

resultsSeventeen studies met the inclusion criteria. Health outcomes were investigated in seven studies of which three reported a positive effect associated with organisation devices. Medication adherence was reported in eight studies of which three reported a positive effect. Three studies reported health care utilisation data but overall results are inconclusive. No optimal dispensing or supply procedures were identified. Economic assessment of the impact of organisation devices is lacking. All studies were subject to a high risk of bias.

conclusionsEvidence regarding the effects of medication organisation devices was limited, and the available evidence was susceptible to a high risk of bias. Organisation devices may help unintentional medication non-adherence and could improve health outcomes. There is a strong need for more studies that explore the impact of such devices on patients, and an equally pressing need for studies that explore the impacts on healthcare services.

trial registrationThis systematic review is registered with PROSPERO (Registration number CRD42011001718 ).

Indexed as

Drug PackagingMedication AdherenceMedication ErrorsHumansPharmaciesQuality of LifeReminder SystemsTreatment OutcomeAdherenceCompliance aidCostMedication organiserMulti-compartment devicePill organiser

Identifiers

PMID27381448
PMCPMC4933998
OpenAlexW2464539265

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.