4.6 Article

Efficacy of Flow Restrictors in Limiting Access of Liquid Medications by Young Children

Journal

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
Volume 163, Issue 4, Pages 1134-+

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.05.045

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Intramural CDC HHS [CC999999] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To assess whether adding flow restrictors (FRs) to liquid medicine bottles can provide additional protection against unsupervised medication ingestions by young children, even when the child-resistant closure is not fully secured. Study design In April and May 2012, we conducted a block randomized trial with a convenience sample of 110 3- and 4-year-old children from 5 local preschools. Participants attempted to remove test liquid from an uncapped bottle with an FR and a control bottle without an FR (with either no cap or an incompletely closed cap). Results All but 1 (96%; 25 of 26) of the open control bottles and 82% (68 of 83) of the incompletely closed control bottles were emptied within 2 minutes. Only 6% (7 of 110) of the bottles with FRs were emptied during the 10-minute testing period, none before 6 minutes. Overall, children removed less liquid from the bottles with FRs than from the open or incompletely closed control bottles without FRs (both P < .001). All children assigned open control bottles and 90% of those assigned incompletely closed control bottles removed >= 25 mL of liquid. In contrast, 11% of children removed >= 25 mL of liquid from uncapped bottles with FRs. Older children (aged 54-59 months) were more successful than younger children at removing >= 25 mL of liquid (P = .002) from bottles with FRs. Conclusion Our findings suggest that adding FRs to liquid medicine bottles limits the accessibility of their contents to young children and could complement the safety provided by current child-resistant packaging.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available