Background: A decreased capacity to self-manage medications results in nonadherence, medication errors, and drug-related problems in older adults. Previous research identified 80 electronic medication adherence products available to assist patients with self-management of medications. Unfortunately, the usability and workload of these products are unknown. Objective: This study aimed to examine the usability and workload of a sample of electronic medication adherence products. Methods: In a prospective, mixed methods study, a sample of older adults, health care professionals, and caregivers tested the usability and workload of 21 electronic medication adherence products. Each participant tested 5 products, one at a time, after which they completed the system usability scale (SUS) and NASA-task load index (NASA-TLX), instruments that measure the usability and workload involved in using a product. Higher SUS scores indicate more user-friendliness, whereas lower NASA-TLX raw scores indicate less workload when using a product. Results: Electronic medication adherence products required a mean of 12.7 steps (range 5-20) for the appropriate use and took, on average, 15.19 min to complete the setup tasks (range 1-56). Participants were able to complete all steps without assistance 55.3% of the time (103 out of the 186 tests were completed by 39 participants; range 0%-100%). The mean SUS and NASA-TLX raw scores were 52.8 (SD 28.7; range 0-100) and 50.0 (SD 25.7; range 4.2-99.2), respectively, revealing significant variability among the electronic medication adherence products. The most user-friendly products were found to be TimerCap travel size (mean 78.67, SD 15.57; P=.03) and eNNOVEA Weekly Planner with Advanced Auto Reminder (mean 78.13, SD 14.13; P=.049) as compared with MedReady 1700 automated medication dispenser (mean 28.63, SD 21.24). Similarly, MedReady (72.92, SD 18.69) was found to be significantly more work intensive when compared with TimerCap (29.35, SD 20.35; P=.03), e-pill MedGlider home medication management system (28.43, SD 20.80; P=.02), and eNNOVEA (28.65, SD 14.97; P=.03). The e-pill MedTime Station automatic pill dispenser with tipper (71.77, SD 21.98) had significantly more workload than TimerCap (P=.04), MedGlider (P=.03), and eNNOVEA (P=.04). Conclusions: This study demonstrated that variability exists in the usability and workload of different electronic medication adherence products among older adults, caregivers, and clinicians. With few studies having investigated the usability and workload of electronic medication adherence products, no benchmarks exist to compare the usability and workload of these products. However, our study highlights the need to assess the usability and workload of different products marketed to assist with medication taking and provides guidance to clinicians regarding electronic medication adherence product recommendations for their patients. Future development of electronic medication adherence products should ensure that the target populations of patients are able to use these products adequately to improve medication management.

Background: Innovative digital technology systems that support and monitor real-time medication intake are now available commercially; however, there is limited knowledge of the use of such technology in patients’ homes. One such smart medication dispenser, spencer, provides alerts to patients to take their medications and allows for tracking and reporting real-time medication adherence data. Objective: The objectives of this study were to examine the use of a smart medication dispenser as a medication adherence and self-management support tool for community dwelling adults over a 6-month period, in addition to usability, usefulness, satisfaction, and impact on caregiver support. Methods: This prospective, observational study invited community-dwelling adults aged 45 years and older taking at least one chronic medication and their caregivers to use this smart medication dispenser for their medication administration for 6 months. Adherence was defined as a dose intake within 2 hours post scheduled time. Real-time adherence data were collected using the smart medication dispenser and the AdhereNet platform. Usability, usefulness, and satisfaction were measured using the System Usability Scale and the Usefulness, Satisfaction, and Ease of Use questionnaire, respectively. Caregiver burden was measured on a visual analog scale at baseline and at the end of the 6-month study period. Results: A total of 58 participants were recruited, of which 55% (32/58) were female with a mean age of 66.36 (SD 11.28; range 48-90) years. Eleven caregiver participants were recruited, of whom 91% (10/11) were female. The average monthly adherence over 6 months was 98% (SD 3.1%; range 76.5%-100%). The average System Usability score was 85.74 (n=47; SD 12.7; range 47.5-100). Of the 46 participants who provided data, 44 (96%) rated the product as easy, 43 (93%) as simple to use, and 43 (93%) were satisfied with the product. Caregiver burden prior to and following smart medication dispenser use for 6 months was found to be statistically significantly different (P<.001; CI 2.11-5.98). Conclusions: Smart medication adherence products such as spencer, when connected and clinically monitored, can be a useful solution for medication management and have the potential to improve caregiver burden.

Background: Older adults often face challenges in self-managing their medication owing to physical and cognitive limitations, complex medication regimens, and packaging of medications. Emerging smart medication dispensing and adherence products (SMAPs) offer the options of automated dispensing, tracking medication intake in real time, and reminders and notifications. A 2021 review identified 51 SMAPs owing to the rapid influx of digital technology; an update to this review is required. Objective: This review aims to identify new products and summarize and compare the key features of SMAPs. Methods: Gray and published literature and videos were searched using Google, YouTube, PubMed, Embase, and Scopus. The first 10 pages of Google and the first 100 results of YouTube were screened using 4 and 5 keyword searches, respectively. SMAPs were included if they were able to store and allowed for the dispensation of medications, tracked real-time medication intake data, and could automatically analyze data. Products were excluded if they were stand-alone software applications, not marketed in English, not for in-home use, or only used in clinical trials. In total, 5 researchers independently screened and extracted the data. Results: This review identified 114 SMAPs, including 80 (70.2%) marketed and 34 (29.8%) prototypes, grouped into 15 types. Among the marketed products, 68% (54/80) were available for consumer purchase. Of these products, 26% (14/54) were available worldwide and 78% (42/54) were available in North America. There was variability in the hardware, software, data collection and management features, and cost of the products. Examples of hardware features include battery life, medication storage capacity, availability of types and number of alarms, locking features, and additional technology required for use of the product, whereas software features included reminder and notification capabilities and availability of manufacturer support. Data capture methods included the availability of sensors to record the use of the product and data-syncing capabilities with cloud storage with short-range communications. Data were accessible to users via mobile apps or web-based portals. Some SMAPs provided data security assurance with secure log-ins (use of personal identification numbers or facial recognition), whereas other SMAPs provided data through registered email addresses. Although some SMAPs were available at set prices or free of cost to end users, the cost of other products varied based on availability, shipping fees, and subscription fees. Conclusions: An expanding market for SMAPs with features specific to at-home patient use is emerging. Health care professionals can use these features to select and suggest products that meet their patients’ unique requirements.

Background: Medication management among older adults continues to be a challenge, and innovative electronic medication adherence products have been developed to address this need. Objective: The aim of this study is to examine user experience with electronic medication adherence products, with particular emphasis on features, usefulness, and preferences. Methods: Older adults, caregivers, and health care providers tested the usability of 22 electronic medication adherence products. After testing 5 products, participants were invited to participate in a one-on-one interview to investigate their perceptions and experiences with the features, usefulness, and preference for electronic medication adherence products tested. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using exploratory inductive coding to generate themes. The first 13 interviews were independently coded by 2 researchers. The percentage agreement and Cohen kappa after analyzing those interviews were 79% and 0.79, respectively. A single researcher analyzed the remaining interviews. Results: Of the 37 participants, 21 (57%) were older adults, 5 (14%) were caregivers, and 11 (30%) were health care providers. The themes and subthemes generated from the qualitative analysis included product factors (subthemes: simplicity and product features, including availability and usability of alarms, portability, restricted access to medications, and storage capacity) and user factors (subthemes: sentiment, affordability, physical and cognitive capability, and technology literacy and learnability). Conclusions: Electronic medication adherence products have the potential to enable independent medication management in older adults. The choice of a particular product should be made after considering individual preferences for product features, affordability, and the sentiment of the users. Older adults, caregivers, and health care providers prefer electronic medication adherence products that are simple to set up and use, are portable, have easy-to-access medication compartments, are secure, and have adequate storage capacity.

Background: Medication non-adherence is a leading cause of non-optimal disease management, resulting in poor health outcomes, poor quality of life, and increased healthcare costs. Smart oral multidose dispensing systems (SOMDS) are being developed to address non-adherence; however, little is known about their integration into daily use by patients. Methods: Using Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review framework, relevant literature was searched for in electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and Scopus). Observational and interventional studies reporting the integration and impact on adherence from SOMDS in adults ≥18 years and published after 1960 were included. Results: Thirteen articles including one case study, 8 cohort studies, and 4 randomized trials were eligible. SOMDS included smart blister packaging, automated dispensers, and electronic medication trays. The number of medications dispensed per SOMDS was one (n = 3), >1 (n = 2), placebo (n = 1) and not reported (n = 7). Reported outcomes included impact on medication adherence (n = 3), integration (n = 2) and both parameters (n = 8). Conclusion: Although most studies reported that SOMDS appear usable, there was significant variability in the SOMDS types, patient populations, medication adherence definitions, and measurements; impacting the interpretation of results. Future studies should be designed to address effectiveness of SOMDS on medication adherence in patients with multi-drug therapy and the utilization of real-time adherence data for informing clinical decision making.

Smart adherence products are marketed to assist with medication management. However, little is known about their in-home integration by older adults. It is necessary to investigate the facilitators and barriers older adults face when integrating these products into their medication taking routines before effectiveness can be examined. The aim of this study was to (a) examine the integration of a smart multidose blister package and (b) understand medication intake behaviour of adults with chronic diseases using an integrated theoretical model comprised of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) and Capacity, Opportunity, Motivation and Behaviour (COM-B) Model. An ethnographic-informed study was conducted with older adults using the smart multidose blister package to manage their medications for eight weeks. Data was collected quantitatively and qualitatively using in-home observations, photo-elicitation, field notes, semi-structured interviews, system usability scale (SUS) and net promoter scale (NPS). The interview guide was developed with constructs from the TAM, TPB and COM-B Model. Data were analyzed using the Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven (QUAGOL) framework to generate themes and sub-themes which were mapped back to TAM, TBP and COM-B Model. Ten older adults with an average age of 76 years, of which 80% were female, participated in the study. On average, participants reported five medical conditions, while the average number of medications was 11.1. The mean SUS was 75.50 and overall NPS score was 0. Qualitative analysis identified three themes; (1) factors influencing medication intake behaviour (2) facilitators to the product use and, (3) barriers to the product use. The smart blister package was found to be easy to use and acceptable by older adults. Clinicians should assess an older adult’s medication intake behavior as well as barriers and facilitators to product use prior to recommending an adherence product for managing medications.