Pharmacy World and Science

, Volume 28, Issue 5, pp 284–289 | Cite as

Patients’ attitudes towards and experiences of generic drug substitution in Norway

  • Inge Kjoenniksen
  • Morten Lindbaek
  • Anne Gerd Granas
Research Article

Abstract

Objective

The aim of the study was to assess patients’ attitudes towards and experiences of generic substitution 3 years after generic substitution of prescription medicines was permitted in Norway.

Methods

Prescriptions from 2,128 consecutive patients in a Norwegian pharmacy were retrospectively reviewed to identify all patients (n = 274) receiving eight or more different prescription drugs on the fifth level in the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system during the last 6 months. An age-adjusted control group (n = 269) of patients receiving three to seven different prescription drugs was randomly selected. Of the 543 patients, 386 were eligible for inclusion. Both groups received a mailed questionnaire addressing their experiences with and attitudes towards generic substitution.

Results

The overall response rate was 73% (281/386) and the average age of the respondents was 66 years old. The study found that patients who reported to have received information from their physician or the pharmacy about generic substitution were more likely to have switched (P < 0.001). About half (138/281) of the patients had experienced a generic switch, and a higher proportion of the polypharmacy patients had their medication substituted compared to the control patients (P < 0.001). Altogether 50 (36%) of the patients who had experienced a switch, reported one or more negative experiences connected to the substitution, and 29 of these (21%) reported an overall negative experience after the change. The experiences of the patients were not related to age, gender, or number of medications or information about generics from either the pharmacy or the physician. About 41% of the patients would not switch if they had no personal economic incentives.

Conclusions

About 1/3 of the patients who had their medication substituted reported negative experiences. Generic drug substitution for a number of patients is not considered an equal alternative to branded drugs, and these patients may need additional information and support. The lack of correlation between patient experiences and age, gender, and medical regimen complexity is interesting and should be investigated further.

Keywords

Generic substitution Patient experience Community pharmacy Norway 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aarseth HP. Why generic substitution? (In Norwegian). Tidskr Nor Laegefor 2001; 121(28):3339.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Husom N. Generic substitution - not at any price (In Norwegian). Tidskr Nor Laegefor 2004; 124(16):2165.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Meredith P. Bioequivalence and other unresolved issues in generic drug substitution. Clin Ther 2003; 25(11):2875–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tilyard MW, Dovey SM, Rosenstreich D. General practitioners’ views on generic medication and substitution. N Z Med J 1990; 103(893):318–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Colaizzi JL, Lowenthal DT. Critical therapeutic categories: a contraindication to generic substitution? Clin Ther 1986; 8(4):370–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reiffel JA. Issues in the use of generic antiarrhythmic drugs. Curr Opin Cardiol 2001; 16(1):23–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Welty TE, Pickering PR, Hale BC, Arazi R. Loss of seizure control associated with generic substitution of carbamazepine. Ann Pharmacother 1992; 26(6):775–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Williamson IJ, Reid A, Monie RD, Fennerty AG, Rimmer EM. Generic inhaled salbutamol versus branded salbutamol. A randomised double-blind study. Postgrad Med J 1997; 73(857):156–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Murphy JE. Generic substitution and optimal patient care. Arch Intern Med 1999; 159(5):429–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Banahan BF, III, Kolassa EM. A physician survey on generic drugs and substitution of critical dose medications. Arch Intern Med 1997; 157(18):2080–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nordling S, Lindberg G, Sandberg S, Anell A, Melander A, Rydberg T. Hur gikk det med försöket med generisk substitusjon i Skåne? En rapport från IHE, NEPI og Apoteken i Skåne. (In Swedish) 2000. Kristianstad, Apotekarsocieteten. ISBN 91-8627-489-9.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Madsen S, Huse J, Roksvaag PO. [Pharmacy customers’ attitude to generics] In Norwegian. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2003; 123(6):792–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ganther JM, Kreling DH. Consumer perceptions of risk and required cost savings for generic prescription drugs. J Am Pharm Assoc 2000; 40(3):378–83.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mott DA, Cline RR. Exploring generic drug use behaviour: the role of prescribers and pharmacists in the opportunity for generic drug use and generic substitution. Med Care 2002; 40(8):662–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Suh DC. Trends of generic substitution in community pharmacies. Pharm World Sci 1999; 21(6):260–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Haas JS, Phillips KA, Gerstenberger EP, Seger AC. Potential savings from substituting generic drugs for brand-name drugs: medical expenditure panel survey, 1997–2000. Ann Intern Med 2005; 142(11):891–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lund-Jacobsen B. [Generic substitution – patients’ incentives are too low]. Ugeskr Laeger 1992; 154(46):3215–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Andersson K, Sonesson C, Petzold M, Carlsten A, Lonnroth K. What are the obstacles to generic substitution? An assessment of the behaviour of prescribers, patients and pharmacies during the first year of generic substitution in Sweden. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2005; 14(5):341–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Inge Kjoenniksen
    • 1
  • Morten Lindbaek
    • 2
  • Anne Gerd Granas
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Pharmacy Practice ResearchBergenNorway
  2. 2.Department of General Practice and Community MedicineUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations