ArticlePatient preference and adherence2022
Evaluation of Newly Designed Blister Packs for Easier Handling to Prevent Pill Dropping.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Press-Through Packaging versus Bold and Slim Bottle-Type Containers: A Comparative Evaluation of Drug Packaging Usability in Patients with Rheumatic Diseases.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Article
- Feasibility of Child-Resistant and Senior-Friendly Press-Through Packages: Potential of Different Materials.Pharmaceutics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBlister packs with paperboard backing, which is useful for displaying instructions and information, are the most popular type of packaging for osteoporosis drugs in Japan. However, the main users of drugs are the aged, who often find blister packs difficult to open or drop their pills during opening. In this study, we compared different types of blister packs in terms of usability and handling.
methodsWe conducted a subjective and objective study to compare commonly used blister packs with newly designed ones that have a jagged notch designed to hold a pill temporarily and a perforated line that enables the pack to be held easily in one hand. Regarding subjective data, packaging and sensory tests were performed. The participants in the sensory test were healthy older adults and patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We also measured the pinch power of all participants.
resultsA comparison of several items, including opening status, prevention of pill dropping, and understanding of the instructions, using a numerical rating scale revealed no significant differences between ordinary (type A) and newly designed (type B) packaging. However, the scores for type B were the same or better than those for type A for every evaluation item. In addition, more than 85% of the participants reported preferring to use type B. More than 80% of the participants in both groups reported dropping pills using type A, which seemed to be related to their preference for type B. In the evaluation by the examiner (objective study), all participants could successfully remove their pills without dropping using type B, including those in the RA group who had difficulty handling packages.
conclusionThese findings suggest that the new type of blister pack assessed in this study (type B) is preferable among older and shows promise for a universal design.
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.