An upright eyedrop bottle: accuracy, usage of excess drops, and contamination compared to a conventional bottle
Authors Davies I, Brown N, Wen J, Stinnett S, Kubelick K, Patel R, Benokraitis K, Greene L, Cheek C, Muir K
Received 21 January 2016
Accepted for publication 8 March 2016
Published 28 July 2016 Volume 2016:10 Pages 1411—1417
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewer comments 4
Editor who approved publication: Dr Scott Fraser
Isaiah J Davies,1 Ninita H Brown,2 Joanne C Wen,3 Sandra S Stinnett,1 Kelsey Kubelick,4,5 Roma P Patel,6 Kristin L Benokraitis,7 Latoya Greene,1 Curry Cheek,1 Kelly W Muir1,8
1Department of Ophthalmology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA; 2Metrolina Eye Associates, Charlotte, NC, USA; 3Department of Ophthalmology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; 4Wallace H Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 5Wallace H Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; 6University of California Davis Health System Eye Center, Sacramento, CA, USA; 7EG-GILERO, Durham, NC, USA; 8Health Services Research & Development, Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
Purpose: This study tested the feasibility of using an upright eyedrop bottle (UEB), a device designed to assist patients with eyedrop placement without reclining their head.
Patients and methods: Experienced eyedrop users were enrolled who answered “yes” to the question, “Do you ever have trouble getting your eyedrops in?” After being shown a multimedia presentation and answering a questionnaire regarding eyedrop usage, participants were observed instilling eyedrops. Participants were instructed to instill a single eyedrop in each eye with both a standard bottle and the UEB. They repeated this process three times. With each trial, the amount of time taken to instill drops was recorded, as well as whether a drop landed in the eye (accuracy), if excess drops were used, and if the bottle tip was contaminated.
Results: Forty participants were enrolled, with an average age of 72.4±8.9 years; the majority were females (24 females). Thirty-four participants had been using eyedrops for at least 1 year. The time required to instill eyedrops was significantly less with the UEB in the second and third trials. There was no difference in accuracy between the conventional bottle and the UEB in the left or right eye in any trials. Significantly more participants used excess number of drops while using the conventional bottle in both the left and right eyes in all three trials. The bottle tip was never contaminated with the UEB. Depending on the trial and the eye, the conventional bottle was contaminated by between 42% and 53% of participants.
Conclusion: The UEB has the potential to assist patients with eyedrop placement. Although there was no difference in accuracy between the UEB and the conventional bottle, the UEB was associated with less use of excess drops and less contamination of the bottle tip, compared to the conventional bottle.
Keywords: glaucoma, compliance, medical devices
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]