ArticlePatient preference and adherence2024
Comparing Patient Satisfaction with Automated Drug Dispensing System and Traditional Drug Dispensing System: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient Experiences With Outpatient Pharmacy Services in Hospitals Using Automated Pharmacy Systems: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Implementing Semi-Automated Medication Dispensing for People with HIV: A Community-Based Alternative to Traditional Pharmacy Pickups.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Analysis of Drug Product Dispensing Error Characteristics, Construction and Evaluation of a Risk Warning Model in Outpatient Pharmacy: A Retrospective Study in China.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The adoption of automated drug dispensing systems (ADDS) in hospital pharmacies is a global trend, driven by its potential to reduce dispensing errors, minimize prescription filling time, and ultimately, improve patient care services. However, a significant research gap exists in the field, as a comprehensive assessment of patient satisfaction with ADDS is currently lacking. This study, with its comprehensive approach, aims to fill this gap by comparing patient satisfaction between hospital pharmacies implementing ADDS and traditional drug dispensing systems (TDDS). Patients and Methods: The cross-sectional study was conducted in hospitals adopting ADDS and TDDS. All the outpatients aged 18 or above who visited the pharmacy were included, and severely ill patients were excluded from the study. A 17-item, 5-point Likert scale questionnaire assessed the participant's satisfaction. The questionnaire has four domains: pharmacy administration, dispensing practice, patient education, and dispensing system. Results: The demographics of the study participants were normally distributed between ADDS and TDDS according to chi-square analysis. The mean participant satisfaction was significantly (P<0.05) higher in ADDS than in TDDS regarding all the items of dispensing practice and dispensing system domains. Three items related to the pharmacy administration domain showed significant participant satisfaction with ADDS. However, the participants' satisfaction showed no significant difference (p=0.176) between ADDS and TDDS in terms of the cleanliness of the pharmacy. Also, the participant's satisfaction between ADDS and TDDS was not statistically significant regarding the pharmacist's explanation of the side effects (p=0.850) and provision of all necessary information to the patient (p=0.061) in the patient education domain. Conclusion: Patient satisfaction was higher in the ADDS participants than in TDDS regarding pharmacy administration, patient education, dispensing practice, and systems. However, pharmacists in ADDS need to be motivated to transfer the advantages of ADDS to patient care, including comprehensive patient education, particularly on side effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.