ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2018
The experiences and beliefs of older people in Scottish very sheltered housing about using multi-compartment compliance aids.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Community Pharmacist Preferences for Providing a Dose Administration Aid Service in Australia: A Discrete Choice Experiment.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
- Fragmented Care, Fragmented Safety: Care Coordination and Deprescribing Strategies to Reduce Polypharmacy-Related Harm in Assisted Living-A Public Health Perspective.Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- [Study on the use of multi-compartment compliance aids to improve blood pressure values in hypertensive patients].Farmaceuticos comunitarios · 2023Article
- Patients' experiences with multidose drug dispensing: a cross sectional study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2019Article
- Qualitative study of blister pack use during buprenorphine low dose initiation.Journal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhAArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Multi-compartment compliance aids (MCAs) are promoted as a potential solution to medicines non-adherence despite the absence of high quality evidence of effectiveness of MCA use impacting medicines adherence or any clinical outcomes. Furthermore, there is a lack of qualitative research which focuses on the perspectives of older people receiving MCAs. Objectives To describe experiences and beliefs surrounding very sheltered housing (VSH) residents' use of MCAs with emphasis on issues of personalisation, reablement, shared decision-making, independence and support. Setting VSH in north east Scotland. Methods Qualitative, face-to-face interviews with 20 residents (≥ 65 years, using MCA > 6 months) in three VSH complexes. Interviews focused on: when and why the MCA was first introduced; who was involved in making that decision; how the MCA was used; perceptions of benefit; and any difficulties encountered. Interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed and analysed using a framework approach. Main outcome measure Experiences and beliefs surrounding use of MCAs. Results Nine themes were identified: shared decision-making; independence; knowledge and awareness of why MCA had been commenced; support in medicines taking; knowledge and awareness of medicines; competent and capable to manage medicines; social aspects of carers supporting MCA use; benefits of MCAs; and drawbacks. Conclusion Experiences and beliefs are diverse and highly individual, with themes identified aligning to key strategies and policies of the Scottish Government, and other developed countries around the world, specifically personalisation shared decision making, independence, reablement and support.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.