Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30478494›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2019

Patients' experiences with multidose drug dispensing: a cross sectional study.

Bram J Mertens, Henk-Frans Kwint, Rob J van Marum, Marcel L Bouvy

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Qualitative study of blister pack use during buprenorphine low dose initiation.Journal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhA
    Article
  11. Multidose Drug Dispensing in Community Healthcare Settings for Patients With Multimorbidity and Polypharmacy.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
    Review
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.

Bram J MertensDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, University Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. b.mertens@apotheekstevenshof.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6863-8180
Henk-Frans KwintSIR Institute for Pharmacy Practice and Policy, Theda Mansholtstraat 5b, 2331 JE, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Rob J van MarumGeriatric Department, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4292-532X
Marcel L BouvyDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, University Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4596-0684
Amsterdam Public Health · NLPharmo Institute · NLSIR Institute for Pharmacy Practice and Policy · NLUtrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Automated multidose drug dispensing is used to support patients with their medication management. Though multidose drug dispensing systems are frequently used, little is known about patients' experiences with multidose drug dispensing systems. Objective To explore patients' experiences with the initiation and use of multidose drug dispensing systems. Setting A survey was carried out with patients using multidose drug dispensing systems through three community pharmacies. Method A semi-structured interview protocol was designed based on existing literature and a pilot study. Main outcome measures The main outcome measures were (1) patients' experiences with initiating multidose drug dispensing systems and (2) patients' experienced advantages and disadvantages of multidose drug dispensing systems. Results The start of multidose drug dispensing was discussed with 76% of the patients (n = 62). Ninety percent of patients expressed the opinion that the multidose drug dispensing system supported them with their medication management. Sixty patients reported 110 advantages, which can be organized into the following categories: improved medication adherence and medication safety (59%); patient's convenience (40%); and other (1%). Sixty-nine percent of patients reported no disadvantages, 24% had problems opening the bags or outer packaging and 13% had problems with the legibility of the printed text on the bag. Conclusion In concordance with the Dutch guideline, patients are generally involved in the decision to initiate an multidose drug dispensing system. Patients are very satisfied using the system and report multiple advantages. Multidose drug dispensing systems may be further improved by simplifying the manual opening of the bags and improving the legibility of the text on the bags.

Indexed as

Medication SystemsPatient SatisfactionPolypharmacyAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesDrug PackagingFemaleHumansMaleNetherlandsPatient ParticipationPharmaceutical PreparationsSelf AdministrationPharmaceutical PreparationsAdherenceCommunity pharmacyDosing aidsMultidose drug dispensingPatients’ experiencesThe Netherlands

Identifiers

PMID30478494
PMCPMC6394512
OpenAlexW2903019120

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.