International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 40, Issue 2, pp 321–324 | Cite as

Unintended consequences for patients of future personalized pharmacoprinting

  • Susanne KaaeEmail author
  • Johanna  Lena Maria Lind
  • Natalja Genina
  • Sofia Kälvemark Sporrong


Manufacturing pharmaceuticals by the use of 3D printing is a promising way to achieve more personalized drug treatment. To effectively use this technology, patients need to continuously measure their health, and new decisions have to be taken, for example, regarding the number of daily drugs including how many active pharmaceutical substances these should contain along with decisions around size, shape and color. Positive as well as negative effects of pharmacoprinted medicine on patients are likely to occur. Negative consequences with influence on patient autonomy and role might include: patients not being capable or interested in conducting self-monitoring, loosing overview of the medical treatment, reducing the ability to perform self-regulation, loosing trust in the pharmacoprinted medicine, and not being interested in taking on a new role in medical decision making. These issues are discussed in the paper in order to prevent upcoming challenges in the area of pharmacoprinting.


Pharmacoprinting Patient Polypill Shared decision making 



The authors received no funding in connection with the paper.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    Alhnan M, Okwuosa T, Sadia M, Wan K-W, Ahmed W, Arafat B. Emergence of 3D printed dosage forms: opportunities and challenges. Pharm Res. 2016. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Khaled SA, Burley JC, Alexander MR, Yang J, Roberts CJ. 3D printing of five-in-one dose combination polypill with defined immediate and sustained release profiles. J Control Release. 2015;217:308–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Norman J, Madurawe R, Moore C, Khan M, Khairuzzaman A. A new chapter in pharmaceutical manufacturing: 3D-printed drug products. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2016. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lind J, Sporrong S, Kaae S, Rantanen J, Genina N. Social aspects in additive manufacturing of pharmaceutical products. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2017;14:927–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goole J, Amighi K. 3D printing in pharmaceutics: a new tool for designing customized drug delivery systems. Int J Pharm. 2016;499:376–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ursan I, Chiu L, Pierce A. Three-dimensional drug printing: a structured review. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2013;53:136–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alomari M, Mohamed F, Basit A, Gaisford S. Personalised dosing: printing a dose of one´s own medicine. Int J Pharm. 2015;494:568–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Larsen A, Haugbølle L. The impact of an automated dose-dispensing scheme on user compliance, medication understanding, and medication stockpiles. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2007;3:265–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shah S, Robinson I. Patients’ perspectives on self-testing of oral anticoagulation therapy: content analysis of patients’ internet blogs. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:
  10. 10.
    Finkelstein J, Khare R, Ansell J. Feasibility and patients’ acceptance of home automated telemanagement of oral anticoagulation therapy. AMIA 2003 symposium proceedings; 2003. p. 230–234.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kulinna W, Wenzel T, Heene D, Harenberg J. The effect of self-monitoring the INR on quality of anticoagulation and quality of life. Semin Thromb Hemost. 1999;25:123–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Scherman M, Löwhagen O. Drug compliance and identity: reasons for non-compliance. Experiences of medication from persons with asthma/allergy. Pat Educ Couns. 2004;54:3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leventhal H, Leventhal E, Contrada R. Self-regulation, health and behavior: a perceptual-cognitive approach. Psychol Health. 1998;13:717–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Williams B, Shaw A, Durrant R, Crinson I, Pagliary C, De Lusignan S. Patient perspective on multiple medications versus combined pills: a qualitative study. Q J Med. 2005;98:885–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bryant L, Martini N, Chan J, Chan L, Marmoush A, Robinson B, Yu K, Wong M. Could the polypill improve adherence. J Prim Health Care. 2013;5:28–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Geest S, Whyte S. The charm of medicines: metaphors and metonyms. Med Anthropol Q. 1989;3:345–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pound P, Britten N, Morgan M, Yardley L, Pope C, Daker-White G, Campell R. Resisting medicines: a synthesis of qualitative studies of medicine taking. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61:133–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liu F, Ranmal S, Batchelor H, Orlu-Gul M, Ernest T, Thomas I, Flanagan T, Tuleu C. Patient-centred pharmaceutical design to improve acceptability of medicines: similarities and differences in paediatric and geriatric populations. Drugs. 2014;74:1871–89.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goyanes A, Scarpa M, Kamlow M, Gaisford S, Basit AW, Orlu M. Patient acceptability of 3D printed medicines. Int J Pharm. 2017;530:71–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chewning B, Bylund C, Shah B, Arora N, Gueguen J, Makoul G. Patient preferences for shared decisions: a systematic review. Pat Educ Couns. 2012;86:9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Légarè F, Thompson-Leduc P. Twelve myths about shared desicion making. Pat Educ Couns. 2014;96:281–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shay L, Lafata L. Understanding patient perception of shared decision making. Pat Educ Couns. 2014;96:293–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pharmacy, The University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations