Suzanne S Dunne1. 1. Centre for Interventions in Infection, Inflammation and Immunity (4i) and Graduate Entry Medical School, University of Limerick, Castletroy, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland. suzanne.dunne@ul.ie.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Considerable emphasis is placed on the use of generic medicines because of the potential economic benefits associated with their use. The objective of this systematic review is to compile and collate published research regarding patient/consumer perceptions and attitudes in relation to generic medicines, aiming to describe such views and detail patient experiences with generic medicines. METHODS: Literature published between 2005 and July 2015, indexed in PubMed, Scopus and EMBASE, on the topic of consumer or patient opinions of generic medicines were collated, using systematic searches, and appraised. RESULTS: A total of 59 papers were reviewed. Familiarity and trust in brand names appears to be a substantial barrier to the increased use of generics, with patients also appearing to hold the view that if a product is cheaper, then it must not be as good. Some publications report positive views of generics, with positively inclined consumers stating that they did not perceive any difference between a generic and the proprietary medicine. Acceptance of generics appears to be higher in consumers with higher levels of education while patients from lower socioeconomic demographic groups tend to have greater mistrust of generics. CONCLUSIONS: The provision of information to consumers that dispels myths about generics may improve confidence in generic medicines. As patients demonstrate a high degree of trust in physicians, their opinions can impact on patient/consumer opinions. Therefore, enhancing the perceptions of generics held by physicians is likely to have a positive impact on patient/consumer opinions of, and trust in, generic medications.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Considerable emphasis is placed on the use of generic medicines because of the potential economic benefits associated with their use. The objective of this systematic review is to compile and collate published research regarding patient/consumer perceptions and attitudes in relation to generic medicines, aiming to describe such views and detail patient experiences with generic medicines. METHODS: Literature published between 2005 and July 2015, indexed in PubMed, Scopus and EMBASE, on the topic of consumer or patient opinions of generic medicines were collated, using systematic searches, and appraised. RESULTS: A total of 59 papers were reviewed. Familiarity and trust in brand names appears to be a substantial barrier to the increased use of generics, with patients also appearing to hold the view that if a product is cheaper, then it must not be as good. Some publications report positive views of generics, with positively inclined consumers stating that they did not perceive any difference between a generic and the proprietary medicine. Acceptance of generics appears to be higher in consumers with higher levels of education while patients from lower socioeconomic demographic groups tend to have greater mistrust of generics. CONCLUSIONS: The provision of information to consumers that dispels myths about generics may improve confidence in generic medicines. As patients demonstrate a high degree of trust in physicians, their opinions can impact on patient/consumer opinions. Therefore, enhancing the perceptions of generics held by physicians is likely to have a positive impact on patient/consumer opinions of, and trust in, generic medications.
Authors: Aaron S Kesselheim; Katsiaryna Bykov; Jerry Avorn; Angela Tong; Michael Doherty; Niteesh K Choudhry Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: William H Shrank; Emily R Cox; Michael A Fischer; Jyotsna Mehta; Niteesh K Choudhry Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2009 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Amanda L Hulbert; Nicole A Pilch; David J Taber; Kenneth D Chavin; Prabhakar K Baliga Journal: Ann Pharmacother Date: 2012-05-08 Impact factor: 3.154
Authors: Pieter J Glerum; Marc Maliepaard; Vincent de Valk; Joep H G Scholl; Florence P A M van Hunsel; Eugène P van Puijenbroek; David M Burger; Kees Neef Journal: Clin Transl Sci Date: 2020-02-12 Impact factor: 4.689
Authors: Justine Alderfer; Jyoti Aggarwal; Kim Gilchrist; Jose Maria Jimenez Alvir; Joseph Cook; Sang Hee Park; Jennifer M Stephens Journal: Clinicoecon Outcomes Res Date: 2022-04-27