IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0224323.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of traditional methods versus SAFEcount for filling prescriptions: A pilot study of an innovative pill counting solution in eSwatini

Author

Listed:
  • Paul J Krezanoski
  • Joseph D Krezanoski
  • Nkosinathi Nxumalo
  • Rose Gabert
  • Alison B Comfort
  • Phinda Khumalo
  • Kidwell Matshotyana

Abstract

Background: Packaging medications is a crucial component of health system efficiency and quality. In developing countries, medications often arrive in bulk containers that need to be counted by hand. Traditional counting is time-consuming, inaccurate and tedious. SAFEcount is a novel and inexpensive handheld device that may improve the accuracy and speed of pill-counting in resource limited settings. We designed a head-to-head trial to compare traditional and SAFEcount prescription filling in eSwatini. Methods: We recruited 31 participants from 13 health facilities throughout eSwatini. Speed and accuracy for each prescription was recorded while each participant filled prescriptions of various quantities using both the traditional and SAFEcount methods. Results: Traditional pill counting resulted in an error rate of 12.6% inaccurate prescriptions compared to 4.8% for SAFEcount (p

Suggested Citation

  • Paul J Krezanoski & Joseph D Krezanoski & Nkosinathi Nxumalo & Rose Gabert & Alison B Comfort & Phinda Khumalo & Kidwell Matshotyana, 2019. "Comparison of traditional methods versus SAFEcount for filling prescriptions: A pilot study of an innovative pill counting solution in eSwatini," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-14, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0224323
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224323
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0224323
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0224323&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0224323?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0224323. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.