4.7 Article

Age-appropriate and acceptable paediatric dosage forms: Insights into end-user perceptions, preferences and practices from the Children's Acceptability of Oral Formulations (CALF) Study

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICS
卷 514, 期 1, 页码 296-307

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2016.07.054

关键词

Paediatric; Medicine; Solid oral dosage forms; Age-appropriate; Patient acceptability; Preferences

资金

  1. Pfizer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A lack of evidence to guide the design of age-appropriate and acceptable dosage forms has been a longstanding knowledge gap in paediatric formulation development. The Children's Acceptability of Oral Formulations (CALF) study captured end-user perceptions and practices with a focus on solid oral dosage forms, namely tablets, capsules, chewables, orodispersibles, multiparticulates (administered with food) and mini-tablets (administered directly into the mouth). A rigorous development and testing phase produced age-adapted questionnaires as measurement tools with strong evidence of validity and reliability. Overall, 590 school children and adolescents, and 428 adult caregivers were surveyed across hospitals and various community settings. Attitudes towards dosage forms primarily differed based on age and prior use. Positive attitudes to tablets and capsules increased with age until around 14 years. Preference was seen for chewable and orodispersible preparations across ages, while multiparticulates were seemingly less favourable. Overall, 59.6% of school children reported willingness to take 10 mm diameter tablets, although only 32.1% of caregivers perceived this size to be suitable. While not to be taken as prescriptive guidance, the results of this study provide some evidence towards rational dosage form design, as well as methodological approaches to help design tools for further evaluation of acceptability within paediatric studies. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据