Dr. P Basic Type Adult Diaper Review

 *For more information on how I do reviews see Diaper Test Methodology

 

Summary

The Dr. P Basic Type is an adult diaper sold throughout Southeast Asia under the aptly named “Dr. P” brand. The brand appears to have originated in Taiwan but has since built a large presence in Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines. Moreover, it appears the brand was either wholly or partially acquired by Essity, the makers of Tena, at some point so some Dr. P products are comarketed with the Tena brand. Because of this, the exact product you get could differ substantially due to the local manufacturer. For this review, I’m covering the Indonesian version of the Dr. P Basic Type diaper, which is manufactured by Sinergi Indonesia.

For a diaper marketed as “Basic Type”, you certainly won’t get a top performer out of this, but it comes at an incredibly low unit price so even with just a single wetting of absorption there’s still a decent value prop (cheaper than many booster pads). This diaper has a plastic backsheet and double-tapes that can be taped once and refastened in the same spot multiple times. However, it lacks the features you’d get in many other diapers like waistbands or inner leakguards. I found it to be quite comfortable, but I wouldn’t recommend it for heavy wetters, particularly if you can’t change frequently. It won’t last more than a single wetting before leaking. The sizing tends toward the larger size, with the smallest size being a medium so it won’t work for smaller individuals; though you should note that sizing is based on hip-size and the medium may fit smaller than you'd otherwise expect.

Key Features:

• Plastic backsheet
• Refastenable fasteners
  
• Wetness indicator
  

Pros:

• Decent tapes
  
• Comfortable and breathable
  
• very low unit price
  

Cons:

• Surface dampness
• Low absorbency
  

Product Details

For the purpose of this post I will be reviewing and referring to the medium-sized Dr. P Basic Type Adult Diaper. However, other available sizes are listed below:

Packaging

Brand: Dr. P
Manufacturer: PT.Sinergi Adimitra Jaya
Origin: Indonesia
Units Per Bag: 10
Cost Per Unit: $
Dimensions (L x W x H): 22 cm (8.7") x 18 cm (7.1") x 23 cm (9.1")
Weight: 1.0 kg (2.2 lbs)
Available Sizes: M,L,XL
Advertised Absorbency: Basic

1.1 Dr. P Basic Type Packaging

Diaper

Backsheet: Plastic (poly)
Wetness Indicator: Yes (blue text in hearts down middle, fades when wet)
Standing Inner Leak Guards: No
Leg Gathers: Yes
Product Style: Tab-Style Brief
Refastenable Tabs: Yes
Number of Tapes: 2
Repositionable Tabs: No
Outer Color: White (light blue hearts & text down middle)
Inner Color: White
Front Waistband: No
Rear Waistband: No
Folded Thickness: 2.17 cm (0.85")
Folded Length: 24 cm (9.5")
Dry Weight: 100 g (3.5 oz)
Fragrance: No
Diaper Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 79 cm (31.1") x 65 cm (25.6") x 27 cm (10.6") x 62 cm (24.4")
Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Rectangular, Rectangular
Padding Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 63.5 cm (25") x 37 cm (14.6") x 19 cm (7.5") x 43 cm (16.9")
Padding Wing Dimensions (fPW x fPH x bPW x bPH): 9 cm (3.5") x 15 cm (5.9") x 12 cm (4.7") x 16 cm (6.3")
Padding Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Semicircle, Semicircle
Total Padding Area: 1861 cm² (288 in²)
Tape Spacing (t1 x t2): 4 cm (1.6") x 12 cm (4.7")
Tape (W x L): 2.5 cm (1.0") x 4 cm (1.6")

1.2 Dr. P Basic Type Adult Diaper

Laboratory Absorbency Tests

Total Absorption Volume (after press out): 700 ml (24.7 oz)
Total Absorption Volume (before press out): 710 ml (25 oz)
Time to Absorb Wettings (first to last): (72 s, 59 s, 69 s)
Wet Folded Thickness: 3.5 cm (1.4")
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 52%
Total Padding to Absorbency Ratio: 0.69 ml / cm² (0.16 oz / in²)
Press Out Volume: 10 ml (0.35 oz)

Surface Dampness Rating: 4

During the lab test, the Dr. P diaper demonstrated some surface dampness after the first wetting. It wasn’t excessive, but still noticeable. This was backed up by real world testing, where dampness was clearly present in the diaper when wet. I rank it slightly below average in this regard. The dampness will definitely be noticeable, but the pressout moisture was a bit less than worst performers in this regard.

2.1 Wet vs Dry Diaper After Capacity Test

2.2 Used vs Unused Padding After Capacity Test

"Real World" Absorbency Tests

Posture Tests

Standing-Sitting

Total Absorbed Volume: 750 ml (26.5 oz)
Total Wettings: (1 standing, 1 sitting)
Leaked After Sitting: No
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 73%
Padding to Absorbency Score: 0.40 ml / cm² (0.09 oz / in²)

Standing-Sitting Rating: 4
The Dr. P Basic Type diaper managed the first wetting while standing without any signs of leaking. That said, there was initially a significant amount of pooling that gathered in the mid-padding and it felt like a bit of moisture was pushing against the edges where normally it would be held back by leak guards. Upon sitting it felt like a bit of the residual moisture that had made it outside of the padding pushed out, but it wasn’t enough to leave any obvious marks so I didn’t consider it to be a leak. The diaper certainly felt damp at this point, but not overwhelmingly so since there was still a considerable amount of dry padding at the front and rear. On the second wetting moisture pushed up the front of the diaper and soaked the previously dry front padding. Initially there was no sign of leakage but the moisture remained stuck and pooled up in the front padding with some eventually making it into the sides and leaking from there. Some of the back padding remained dry and perhaps had there been better moisture direction/wicking it might have managed without a leak. However, the remaining padding was clearly saturated and the leakage was substantial. Generally this diaper should manage one wetting during daily wear, but I’d be a bit wary as I still encountered some leakage and pressout near the middle is a significant concern as it lacks inner leak guards.

Lying Down

Total Absorbed Volume: 525 ml (18.5 oz)
Total Wettings: 1
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 65%
Padding to Absorbency Score: 0.28 ml / cm² (0.06 oz / in²)

Lying Down Rating: 3

The Dr. P Basic Type leaked earlier than expected when tested while lying down. During the first wetting there was initially substantial pooling in the mid-section/rear that made its way through much of the rear padding. It took a few minutes for the moisture to fully be absorbed and in that time some of it made it through the rear leg gathers. Had this diaper had stronger leak guards I suspect it would have easily managed this wetting, but the sides are relatively loose and open so there wasn’t much to block the leakage. Surprisingly, the front padding remained completely dry, so it certainly didn’t hit near its theoretical absorbency. The overall leakage wasn’t substantial and I’d say this diaper will probably typically contain a single wetting without leaking but not reliably. I generally wouldn’t recommend this diaper for bedwetting unless used with additional protection such as a booster or plastic pants.

2.3 Pattern of Used vs Unused Padding Test Stand/Sit (right) Lying Down (left)

Daily Wear and Bedwetting

Given its very low price point I wasn’t expecting much from the Dr. P Basic Type, so the fact that it was comfortable, durable and generally managed a wetting without leakage was a pleasant surprise. I’d hardly say this diaper is foolproof, and due to the lack of moisture channeling it has a high likelihood of leaking after a particularly heavy wetting. In spite of that, I found the plastic to be very soft and comfortable and compared with other Southeast Asian diapers the lack of a landing zone also contributed to the comfort and breathability. I do like the landing zone for convenience, but in many diapers I found that it detracts from comfort to some degree. This diaper will work for those with light-moderate daily or overnight incontinence. In terms of wear for bedwetting, I found that it worked some of the time, but was also susceptible to leakage on heavier wetting nights. I feel the simple addition of inner leak guards would go a long way to making it a reliable single wetting diaper, because in testing I found its absorbency well exceeds what would be a full bladder for most. It’s safe to say this diaper won’t handle two wettings under pretty much any circumstances. When I tested for daily wear, it did feel somewhat susceptible to pressout when sitting after a wetting. There weren’t significant leaks but there was moisture around the leak guards. Other than that, I found this diaper to be quite durable with the padding holding out well in dry and wet states. It should make an excellent warm weather diaper, and maybe even for slight-to-moderate exercise, but I wouldn’t trust it to hold out with any intensive exercises. This diaper is perfect for those with moderate incontinence, as it can be acquired at a highly affordable price point and it should be highly reliable for such usage.

Suitability for Bowel Incontinence: 6

The Dr. P Basic Type diaper should be a good choice for dealing with bowel incontinence, but it lacks several important features. First, while the leg gathers are decent, the lack of inner leak guards would make it a risky choice when dealing with bowel incontinence. The lack of waistbands and susceptibility to surface dampness could also be problematic when it comes to odors. However, it does have the advantage of being plastic backed and has a large pocket at the rear as well as extensive rear padding. With that in mind, it may work fine for cases where the individual is sleeping or otherwise bedridden and movement will be less of a concern.

Wear & Tear Tests

Fitting

The Dr. P Basic Type diaper features a soft plastic backsheet with double-tape fasteners. While the plastic is similar to that of many Southeast Asian diapers in that it's soft and flexible, the double-tape is rather rare from the regional diapers I’ve tested so far; where most in the region use a tape landing-zone. The double-tape is like what you’d get in Europe or North American plastic-backed diapers such as the Tranquility ATN. I found the fit to be a bit loose as the padding is wide and it doesn’t feature waistbands or inner leak guards. The tapes have a decent grip and can be refastened to the same spot multiple times, but I found you need to be a bit careful pulling them up to avoid damaging the adhesiveness or backsheet.

3.1 Dr. P Basic Type Adult Diaper Fastener

 

Ease-of-Use Rating: 7

The Dr. P Basic Type Adult Diaper is reasonably user friendly. I didn’t find it too hard to get a comfortable fit and you can do some tape adjustment if you don’t get it right the first time, but the double-tapes mean you will be limited if you miss it on the first taping. I also found removing the tapes could be a bit tricky and if removed too quickly without care it could damage the backsheet. Compounding this, the tapes are a bit on the small side so it requires some dexterity to realign them. On the plus side, it has a wetness indicator that should help in caregiver environments. That said, it lacks inner leaks guards which could make it messier to change and more prone to leaks. Other than that, the padding is reasonably wide, but quite flexible, which helps with the fit and ensures good coverage. The sizing is perhaps slightly on the large size, but still in a reasonable range for the medium to be considered medium.

3.2 Dr. P Basic Type Adult Diaper Fit

 

Comfort

Comfort Rating (dry): 10

The Dr. P Basic Type Adult Diaper certainly ranks among the most comfortable diapers I’ve tested. I put it in a similar position to the Certainty Adult Diaper in terms of comfort as it felt very similar to that diaper in its dry state. I may even give it a bit of an edge because it doesn’t have a landing zone and I find those can often detract from comfort. It also lacks inner leak guards, which I feel makes it a bit more breathable, albeit more susceptible to leaks. The padding itself and backsheet structure are quite durable and I didn’t have issues with padding deterioration or sagging or tape slippage in its dry state. The padding is also extensive so less skin is in contact with the inside of the backsheet.

Comfort Rating (wet): 7

The Dr. P diaper proved a bit more comfortable than I expected when wet. With the caveat that absorbency is quite limited (maybe a single wetting), there’s a large amount of padding to distribute moisture and it generally remains quite soft. I was impressed with how well it did in terms of distributing heat/humidity. In spite of obvious surface dampness problems and having a plastic-backsheet, I didn’t notice any clamminess. I also didn’t have any issues with sagging and the diaper held up fine when wet, though I did find it bulged a bit more at the rear due to the large rear pocket. The padding also proved quite durable; it had a bit of squishiness when wet but didn’t clump or tear. That said, I still did notice some dampness from pressout, particularly when sitting so it still falls short of the best performers in this regard.

3.3 Dr. P Basic Type Adult Diaper Topsheet and Backsheet

Durability

Dry Padding Deterioration Proportion: 10.5% (topsheet), 9.0% (backsheet)
Shake Deterioration Test: 3 shakes to deterioration

Durability Rating (dry): 7
The Dr. P diaper was surprisingly durable when tested for dry durability. I rank it similar to the Carnation Adult Diaper in this regard. There was nothing in the way of padding clumping or significant tearing in the core parts of the padding even after an extended amount of wear. However, there was a slight detachment of the backsheet from the padding over the mid-section and I also noticed the wetness indicator was affected by sweat/slight drips/dribbles. Even so, it was way more durable than cheap North American diapers like the Attends Poly. The tapes also proved strong and never really lost their grip during testing. I rank it slightly above average in this metric.

Durability Rating (wet): 6

The Dr. P diaper was slightly weaker in its wet durability than dry durability. It only managed 3 shakes in the wet shake test, though that has turned out to be about average and I don’t weigh that test too heavily for practical purposes. Mostly I just noticed a little more in the way of padding deterioration when wet compared to when dry. This was more evident in the front padding where tears could form between the dry padding at the top and wet padding below. Otherwise, the tapes had no issue carrying the wet diaper and I didn’t have issues with sagging or loosening. I rank it about average when it comes to wet durability.

3.4 Dr. P Basic Type Adult Diaper Dry Test Deterioration

Discretion Tests

Profile

Front Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 5 cm (2"), 6 cm (2.4")
Back Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 7 cm (2.8"), 6 cm (2.4")
Side Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 4 cm (1.6"), 6 cm (2.4")

Profile Discretion Rating: 7

The Dr. P diaper has a high rise but relatively thin padding and can provide a fair amount of discretion under most clothing. I found it’s a bit more noticeable at the rear, much like the Certainty or Carnation diapers. Obviously it will help if kept under meshpants or underwear. It’s certainly not the most discreet diaper on the market, but hardly the bulkiest either.

4.1 Dr. P Basic Type Adult Diaper Jeans Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right)

4.2 Dr. P Basic Type Adult Diaper Sweats Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right)

 

Noise

Noise Rating: 7

I give the Dr. P diaper a slight edge over the similarly constructed Carnation or Certainty diapers when it comes to noise discreteness. I didn’t notice the sound from this diaper nearly as much as those others and I suspect it has to do with the lack of a thick landing zone at the front. The plastic backsheet is quite soft and flexible and isn’t prone to crinkling. Generally I feel this diaper will be easy to keep concealed in all but the quietest settings.

4.3 Dr. P Basic Type Adult Diaper Noise Profile

 

Odor Reduction

Odor Reduction Rating: 6
The Dr. P has the advantage of a wide plastic backsheet when it comes to suppressing odors. In general, I didn’t notice odors much, but it also lacks waistbands to block odors and susceptibility to surface dampness could be an issue in odor formation. Consequently, I rank it about average in this regard.