ArticlePatient preference and adherence2022
Electronic Smart Blister Packages to Monitor and Support Medication Adherence: A Usability Study.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bridging the Gap Between Awareness and Behaviour in Pressure Injury Prevention: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Self-Management in People With Spinal Cord Injury.International wound journal · 2026Article
- Smart Blister System with and without Mobile App Support: A Randomized Controlled Usability Trial.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
- An Overview of Adherence-What It Is and Why It Is Important.The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice · 2024Review
- Improving medication adherence in cardiovascular disease.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2024Review
- Poking and Prodding So They Take Their Pills.Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2024Article
- Applications of Smart Material Sensors and Soft Electronics in Healthcare Wearables for Better User Compliance.Micromachines · 2022Review
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: An electronic version of the Dosepak Methods: Healthy volunteers aged over 18 years were asked to dispense placebo tablets twice daily from EDPs equipped with a re-usable electronic module for a total duration of four weeks. Afterwards, subjects were asked to complete an online questionnaire and partake in a short one-on-one interview. The usability of the EDP was assessed using the System Usability Scale (SUS), while dose-taking adherence was monitored by EDP records, pill counting, and self-report. The short interview explored user experiences in more detail. Results: Twenty subjects with median [IQR] age 41.5 [32-49.8] years, 55% female, 45% healthcare professionals, and 20% chronic medication users completed the study and found the EDP easy to use, with a mean [SD] SUS score of 78.0 [11.2]. Median [IQR] dose-taking adherence was 89% [82-95%] based on EDP records, 96.5% [89-100%] based on pill counting, 92% [91-96%] based on self-report, and the levels differed significantly (p < 0.05). Four themes emerged from the interviews: user preference, experience, patient burden, and ideas for improvement. Most participants preferred smaller sized blisters. They found the EDP simple to use and did not see any patient burden for its use in trials or clinical practice. Some reported forgetfulness and suggested reminders built into the blister or sent to their mobile phones. Adequate information or instruction should also be provided for older people and polypharmacy patients. Conclusion: EDP had good perceived usability, was well accepted, and differed significantly from other adherence measurement methods. This study provides input to further guide scale-up of the blister packages.
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.