Punam Mistry1, Hannah Batchelor2. 1. Pharmacy and Therapeutics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, B15 2TT, UK. 2. Pharmacy and Therapeutics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, B15 2TT, UK. h.k.batchelor@bham.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Regulatory guidelines require that any new medicine designed for a pediatric population must be demonstrated as being acceptable to that population. There is currently no guidance on how to conduct or report on acceptability testing. AIM: Our objective was to undertake a review of the methods used to assess the acceptability of medicines within a pediatric population and use this review to propose the most appropriate methodology. METHODS: We used a defined search strategy to identify literature reports of acceptability assessments of medicines conducted within pediatric populations and extracted information about the tools used in these studies for comparison across studies. RESULTS: In total, 61 articles were included in the analysis. Palatability was the most common (54/61) attribute measured when evaluating acceptability. Simple scale methods were most commonly used, with visual analog scales (VAS) and hedonic scales used both separately and in combination in 34 of the 61 studies. Hedonic scales alone were used in 14 studies and VAS alone in just five studies. Other tools included Likert scales; forced choice or preference; surveys or questionnaires; observations of facial expressions during administration, ease of swallowing, or ability to swallow the dosage; prevalence of complaints or refusal to take the medicine; and time taken for a nurse to administer the medicine. CONCLUSIONS: The best scale in terms of validity, reliability, feasibility, and preference to use when assessing acceptability remains unclear. Further work is required to select the most appropriate method to justify whether a medicine is acceptable to a pediatric population.
BACKGROUND: Regulatory guidelines require that any new medicine designed for a pediatric population must be demonstrated as being acceptable to that population. There is currently no guidance on how to conduct or report on acceptability testing. AIM: Our objective was to undertake a review of the methods used to assess the acceptability of medicines within a pediatric population and use this review to propose the most appropriate methodology. METHODS: We used a defined search strategy to identify literature reports of acceptability assessments of medicines conducted within pediatric populations and extracted information about the tools used in these studies for comparison across studies. RESULTS: In total, 61 articles were included in the analysis. Palatability was the most common (54/61) attribute measured when evaluating acceptability. Simple scale methods were most commonly used, with visual analog scales (VAS) and hedonic scales used both separately and in combination in 34 of the 61 studies. Hedonic scales alone were used in 14 studies and VAS alone in just five studies. Other tools included Likert scales; forced choice or preference; surveys or questionnaires; observations of facial expressions during administration, ease of swallowing, or ability to swallow the dosage; prevalence of complaints or refusal to take the medicine; and time taken for a nurse to administer the medicine. CONCLUSIONS: The best scale in terms of validity, reliability, feasibility, and preference to use when assessing acceptability remains unclear. Further work is required to select the most appropriate method to justify whether a medicine is acceptable to a pediatric population.
Authors: E McColl; A Jacoby; L Thomas; J Soutter; C Bamford; N Steen; R Thomas; E Harvey; A Garratt; J Bond Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2001 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Gregorio Milani; Monica Ragazzi; Giacomo D Simonetti; Gian P Ramelli; Mattia Rizzi; Mario G Bianchetti; Emilio F Fossali Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Brenda J Shields; Daniel M Cohen; Cynthia Harbeck-Weber; Jean D Powers; Gary A Smith Journal: Clin Pediatr (Phila) Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 1.168
Authors: H Lottmann; F Froeling; S Alloussi; A S El-Radhi; S Rittig; A Riis; B-E Persson Journal: Int J Clin Pract Date: 2007-07-26 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Diane E T Bastiaans; Laura I Immohr; Gertrude G Zeinstra; Riet Strik-Albers; Miriam Pein-Hackelbusch; Michiel van der Flier; Anton F J de Haan; Jaap Jan Boelens; Arjan C Lankester; David M Burger; Adilia Warris Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2017-09-20 Impact factor: 4.335