User-pack interaction: Insights for Designing Inclusive Child-resistant Packaging

  • J. de la Fuente
  • L. Bix

Abstract

Drug packages protect and deliver prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) drugs, as well as communicating necessary warnings and directions to people, enabling the therapeutic benefit of their contents. Despite the fact that people with disabilities and older adults represent a significant portion of the pharmaceutical market, protocols across the world for testing child-resistant (CR) packaging (ISO, 2003), exclude people with any obvious or overt disabilities from the senior-related portion of the test (Bix et al., 2009) (Figure 9.1). These regulations have a critical impact on the level of inclusivity of commercially available CR packaging currently on the market.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bix L, de la Fuente J, Pimple KD, Kou E (2009) Is the test of senior friendly/child resistant packaging ethical? Health Expectations, 12(4): 430–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. De la Fuente J (2006) The use of a universal design methodology for developing child resistant drug packaging. Master’s Thesis: 198, School of Packaging, East Lansing, Michigan State University, MI, USGoogle Scholar
  3. Donaghy A, Wright D (2003) Standardising risk assessment to reduce unintentional noncompliance in aged patients pre-discharge. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice 11(3)Google Scholar
  4. DTI (2002) Specific anthropometric and strength data for people with dexterity disability. Department of Trade and Industry, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  5. ISO (2003) Child-resistant packaging – requirements and testing procedures for reclosable packages. ISO 8317:2003. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  6. Keram S, Williams ME (1988) Quantifying the ease or difficulty older persons experience in opening medication containers. The Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 36(3): 198–201Google Scholar
  7. Kou EY (2006) Child resistant drug packaging and arthritis: can older consumers access their medications? Master’s Thesis: 164, School of Packaging. East Lansing, Michigan State University, MI, USGoogle Scholar
  8. Kresel JJ, Lovejoy FH, Boyle WE, Easom JM (1982) Comparison of large and small childresistant containers. Journal of Toxicology – Clinical Toxicology, 19(4): 377–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lisberg R, Higham C, Jayson M (1983) Problems for rheumatic patients in opening dispensed drug containers. Rheumatology, 22(3): 188–189Google Scholar
  10. Mathiowetz V, Kashman N, Volland G, Weber K, Dowe M, Rogers S (1985a) Grip and pinch strength: normative data for adults. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 66: 69–75Google Scholar
  11. Mathiowetz V, Weber K, Kashman N, Volland G (1985b) Adult norms for nine hole peg test of finger dexterity. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 5(1): 25–38Google Scholar
  12. Pehoski C (2005) Object manipulation in infants and children. In: Henderson A, Pehoski C (eds.) Hand function in the child: foundations for remediation. Mosby Inc., St. Louis, MO, USGoogle Scholar
  13. US CPSC (1995) 16 CFR Part 1700 - requirements for the special packaging of household substances (final rule). Title 16, Part 1700 to 1750 sub chapter. US Consumer Products Safety Commission, Washington, DC, USGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. de la Fuente
    • 1
  • L. Bix
    • 1
  1. 1.School of PackagingMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations