Manufacturing pharmaceuticals by the use of 3D printing is a promising way to achieve more personalized drug treatment. To effectively use this technology, patients need to continuously measure their health, and new decisions have to be taken, for example, regarding the number of daily drugs including how many active pharmaceutical substances these should contain along with decisions around size, shape and color. Positive as well as negative effects of pharmacoprinted medicine on patients are likely to occur. Negative consequences with influence on patient autonomy and role might include: patients not being capable or interested in conducting self-monitoring, loosing overview of the medical treatment, reducing the ability to perform self-regulation, loosing trust in the pharmacoprinted medicine, and not being interested in taking on a new role in medical decision making. These issues are discussed in the paper in order to prevent upcoming challenges in the area of pharmacoprinting.
Pharmacoprinting Patient Polypill Shared decision making
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
The authors received no funding in connection with the paper.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Khaled SA, Burley JC, Alexander MR, Yang J, Roberts CJ. 3D printing of five-in-one dose combination polypill with defined immediate and sustained release profiles. J Control Release. 2015;217:308–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Lind J, Sporrong S, Kaae S, Rantanen J, Genina N. Social aspects in additive manufacturing of pharmaceutical products. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2017;14:927–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Goole J, Amighi K. 3D printing in pharmaceutics: a new tool for designing customized drug delivery systems. Int J Pharm. 2016;499:376–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Ursan I, Chiu L, Pierce A. Three-dimensional drug printing: a structured review. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2013;53:136–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alomari M, Mohamed F, Basit A, Gaisford S. Personalised dosing: printing a dose of one´s own medicine. Int J Pharm. 2015;494:568–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Larsen A, Haugbølle L. The impact of an automated dose-dispensing scheme on user compliance, medication understanding, and medication stockpiles. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2007;3:265–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkelstein J, Khare R, Ansell J. Feasibility and patients’ acceptance of home automated telemanagement of oral anticoagulation therapy. AMIA 2003 symposium proceedings; 2003. p. 230–234.Google Scholar
Kulinna W, Wenzel T, Heene D, Harenberg J. The effect of self-monitoring the INR on quality of anticoagulation and quality of life. Semin Thromb Hemost. 1999;25:123–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Scherman M, Löwhagen O. Drug compliance and identity: reasons for non-compliance. Experiences of medication from persons with asthma/allergy. Pat Educ Couns. 2004;54:3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leventhal H, Leventhal E, Contrada R. Self-regulation, health and behavior: a perceptual-cognitive approach. Psychol Health. 1998;13:717–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams B, Shaw A, Durrant R, Crinson I, Pagliary C, De Lusignan S. Patient perspective on multiple medications versus combined pills: a qualitative study. Q J Med. 2005;98:885–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryant L, Martini N, Chan J, Chan L, Marmoush A, Robinson B, Yu K, Wong M. Could the polypill improve adherence. J Prim Health Care. 2013;5:28–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Geest S, Whyte S. The charm of medicines: metaphors and metonyms. Med Anthropol Q. 1989;3:345–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pound P, Britten N, Morgan M, Yardley L, Pope C, Daker-White G, Campell R. Resisting medicines: a synthesis of qualitative studies of medicine taking. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61:133–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Liu F, Ranmal S, Batchelor H, Orlu-Gul M, Ernest T, Thomas I, Flanagan T, Tuleu C. Patient-centred pharmaceutical design to improve acceptability of medicines: similarities and differences in paediatric and geriatric populations. Drugs. 2014;74:1871–89.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Goyanes A, Scarpa M, Kamlow M, Gaisford S, Basit AW, Orlu M. Patient acceptability of 3D printed medicines. Int J Pharm. 2017;530:71–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Chewning B, Bylund C, Shah B, Arora N, Gueguen J, Makoul G. Patient preferences for shared decisions: a systematic review. Pat Educ Couns. 2012;86:9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Légarè F, Thompson-Leduc P. Twelve myths about shared desicion making. Pat Educ Couns. 2014;96:281–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shay L, Lafata L. Understanding patient perception of shared decision making. Pat Educ Couns. 2014;96:293–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar