RESUMO
Press-through packaging (PTP) is the most common type of drug packaging in Japan, and a production procedure for PTP has been established at an acceptable cost. However, unknown problems and new needs with regard to safety among users of various age-groups still need to be examined. Considering accident reports involving children and older adults, the safety and quality of PTP and new forms of PTP, such as child-resistant and senior-friendly (CRSF) packaging, should be evaluated. We conducted an ergonomic study on children and older adults to compare types of commonly used PTP and new varieties of PTP. Opening tests were attempted by children and older adults using a common type of PTP (Type A) and child-resistant (CR) PTP (Types B1 and B2) made from soft aluminum foil. The same opening test was conducted on older patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The results showed that CR PTP was difficult for children to open: only 1 out of 18 children could open Type B1. On the other hand, all eight of the older adults could open Type B1, and eight patients with RA could easily open Types B1 and B2. These findings suggest that the quality of CRSF PTP can be improved with the use of new materials.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Blister 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: A 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. CONCLUSION: These 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.