Advertisement

Patient Perceptions of Generic Medicines: A Mixed-Methods Study

  • Suzanne Dunne
  • Bill Shannon
  • Colum Dunne
  • Walter Cullen
Original Research Article

Abstract

Introduction

In an attempt to benefit from the cost-savings associated with use of generic medicines, in June 2013 Ireland introduced generic substitution and reference pricing for the first time. However, perceptions of Irish patients towards generic medicines have not been published previously. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess how generic medicines were perceived amongst patients in the time leading up to the enactment of the new legislation.

Methodology

A total of 42 patients were recruited from general practices affiliated with the Graduate Entry Medical School at the University of Limerick and from community pharmacies. Interviews were semi-structured and included quantitative assessments of opinions using 15 structured questions and a five-point Likert scale response system. Interview transcripts were coded and thematically analysed using NVivo (version 9), for qualitative data. Quantitative data were analysed using SPSS (version 20).

Results

Nearly one-third (31 %) of patients had no knowledge of generic medicines and 39 % of those exhibited confusion between the words ‘generic’ and ‘genetic’. Almost one-quarter (24 %) held the view that generics were of poorer quality than originators, while 18 % expressed the opinion that generics do not work as well as originator products. Approximately one-third (30 %) of patients believed that generics were manufactured to a poorer quality, with 29 % holding the view that generics are less expensive due to being of inferior quality. Nearly 90 % of patients stated they would take a generic medicine if it were prescribed by their GP; however, 24 % of patients stated a preference, if offered a choice, for the originator medication. Additionally, a majority of patients (86 %) were in favour of reference pricing and generic substitution. Of the patients interviewed, 50 % stated that a leaflet, or similar, with appropriate, understandable, and accessible information regarding generic medicines would be of use to them.

Conclusion

This is the first study of patients’ attitudes towards generic medicines in Ireland. Conducted in the time period leading up to the implementation of legislation promoting the use of generic medicines, it highlights variable knowledge about generic medicines among this key stakeholder group. Although patients are supportive of their more widespread use, concerns regarding safety, clinical effectiveness, and manufacturing quality of generic medicines were identified.

Keywords

Community Pharmacy Generic Medicine Reference Price Generic Substitution Originator Product 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by a scholarship from the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, University of Limerick, Ireland.

The authors wish to express their sincere thanks to all of the patients who took part in the interviews and also to the individual GPs and pharmacists who permitted patients to be recruited from their practices or pharmacies.

The authors each declare that they do not have any conflicts of interest.

SD designed the study and carried out the interviews and data analysis. SD was the primary author of the manuscript.

BS approved the design of the study and provided critical review of the manuscript.

CD approved the design of the study and provided critical review of the manuscript and is the overall guarantor.

WC approved the design of the study and provided critical review of the manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Health (Pricing and Supply of Medical Goods) Act 2013. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2013/en/act/pub/0014/index.html.
  2. 2.
    Dunne S, Shannon B, Dunne C, Cullen W. A review of the differences and similarities between generic drugs and their originator counterparts, including economic benefits associated with usage of generic medicines, using Ireland as a case study. BMC Pharmacol Toxicol. 2013;14(1):1.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wettermark B, Godman B, Andersson K, Gustafsson LL, Haycox A, Bertele V. Recent national and regional drug reforms in Sweden: implications for pharmaceutical companies in Europe. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(7):537–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Timonen J, Bengtstrom M, Karttunen P, Ahonen R. The impact of generic substitution on the activities of pharmaceutical companies - a survey from the companies’ perspective one year and five years after the introduction of generic substitution in Finland. BMC Clin Pharmacol. 2010;10:15.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Posner J, Griffin JP. Generic substitution. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;72(5):731–2.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ireland: Pharmaceutical Prices, Prescribing Practices and Usage of Generics in a Comparative Context. http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/RS32_Pharma.pdf.
  7. 7.
    Al Ameri MN, Mohamed W, Makramalla E, Shalhoub B, Tucker A, Johnston A. Renal patients’ views on generic prescribing and substitution: example from the United Arab Emirates. East Mediterr Health J. 2013;19(4):373–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Allenet B, Golay A. What are patients’ attitudes towards generic drugs? The example of metformin. Rev Med Suisse. 2013;9(385):1005–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Babar ZU, Stewart J, Reddy S, Alzaher W, Vareed P, Yacoub N, Dhroptee B, Rew A. An evaluation of consumers’ knowledge, perceptions and attitudes regarding generic medicines in Auckland. Pharm World Sci. 2010;32(4):440–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gonzalez Hernando S, Gonzalez Mieres C, Diaz Martin AM. Intention of purchasing generic prescription drugs on the part of consumers in Asturias. Spain. Rev Esp Salud Publica. 2003;77(6):691–9.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hakonsen H, Eilertsen M, Borge H, Toverud EL. Generic substitution: additional challenge for adherence in hypertensive patients? Curr Med Res Opin. 2009;25(10):2515–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hakonsen H, Toverud EL. Special challenges for drug adherence following generic substitution in Pakistani immigrants living in Norway. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;67(2):193–201.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Halme M, Linden K, Kaaria K. Patients’ preferences for generic and branded over-the-counter medicines: an adaptive conjoint analysis approach. Patient. 2009;2(4):243–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Himmel W, Simmenroth-Nayda A, Niebling W, Ledig T, Jansen RD, Kochen MM, Gleiter CH, Hummers-Pradier E. What do primary care patients think about generic drugs? Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2005;43(10):472–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Keenum AJ, Devoe JE, Chisolm DJ, Wallace LS. Generic medications for you, but brand-name medications for me. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2012;8(6):574–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kobayashi E, Karigome H, Sakurada T, Satoh N, Ueda S. Patients’ attitudes towards generic drug substitution in Japan. Health Policy. 2011;99(1):60–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lagarce L, Lusson-Brisset C, Bruhat C, Diquet B, Laine-Cessac P. How practitioners view generic drugs: an opinion study from general practitioners in Maine-et-Loire (France). Therapie. 2005;60(1):67–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Papsdorf TB, Ablah E, Ram S, Sadler T, Liow K. Patient perception of generic antiepileptic drugs in the Midwestern United States. Epilepsy Behav. 2009;14(1):150–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Patel A, Gauld R, Norris P, Rades T. “This body does not want free medicines”: South African consumer perceptions of drug quality. Health Policy Plan. 2010;25(1):61–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Quintal C, Mendes P. Underuse of generic medicines in Portugal: an empirical study on the perceptions and attitudes of patients and pharmacists. Health Policy. 2012;104(1):61–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ringuier R, Rouquette A, Dagorne C, Garnier F, Fanello S. Fifty years old and more patients’ attitudes towards and experiences of generic substitution of prescription medicines. Therapie. 2008;63(1):11–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Roman B. Patients’ attitudes towards generic substitution of oral atypical antipsychotics: a questionnaire-based survey in a hypothetical pharmacy setting. CNS Drugs. 2009;23(8):693–701.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sarradon-Eck A, Blanc MA, Faure M. Users sceptical about generic drugs: an anthropological approach. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2007;55(3):179–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sharrad AK, Hassali MA. Consumer perception on generic medicines in Basrah, Iraq: preliminary findings from a qualitative study. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2011;7(1):108–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Murphy MB: Review of indicative drug target savings scheme. In: Review of indicative drug target savings scheme. Lenus website: Health Service Executive; 1997.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Delivery of Pharmaceuticals in Ireland—Getting a Bigger Bang for the Buck. http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/RS24.pdf.
  27. 27.
    Power C, O’Connor R, Dunne S, Finucane P, Cullen W, Dunne C. An evidence-based assessment of primary care needs in an economically deprived urban community. Ir J Med Sci. 2013;182(3):457–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
  29. 29.
    Likert R: A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol. 1932;140:5–55.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kjoenniksen I, Lindbaek M, Granas AG. Patients’ attitudes towards and experiences of generic drug substitution in Norway. Pharm World Sci. 2006;28(5):284–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Patel A, Gauld R, Norris P, Rades T. Quality of generic medicines in South Africa: perceptions versus reality—a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:297.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    McAuley JW, Chen AY, Elliott JO, Shneker BF. An assessment of patient and pharmacist knowledge of and attitudes toward reporting adverse drug events due to formulation switching in patients with epilepsy. Epilepsy Behav. 2009;14(1):113–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Omojasola A, Gor B, Jones L. Perceptions of generic drug discount programs among low-income women: a qualitative study. Womens Health Issues. 2013;23(1):e55–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sewell K, Andreae S, Luke E, Safford MM. Perceptions of and barriers to use of generic medications in a rural African American population, Alabama, 2011. Prev Chronic Dis. 2012;9:E142.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cené CDDA. Left behind: ensuring clarity and completeness of our educational materials and messages. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(7):583–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dunne S, Cummins N, Hannigan A, Shannon B, Dunne C, Cullen W. A method for the design and development of medical or health care information websites to optimize search engine results page rankings on Google. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(8):e183.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Heikkila R, Mantyselka P, Ahonen R. Do people regard cheaper medicines effective? Population survey on public opinion of generic substitution in Finland. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2011;20(2):185–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Shrank WH, Cadarette SM, Cox E, Fischer MA, Mehta J, Brookhart AM, Avorn J, Choudhry NK. Is there a relationship between patient beliefs or communication about generic drugs and medication utilization? Med Care. 2009;47(3):319–25.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mumoli N, Cei M, Luschi R, Carmignani G, Camaiti A. Allergic reaction to Croscarmellose sodium used as excipient of a generic drug. QJM. 2011;104(8):709–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Coloe J, Zirwas MJ. Allergens in corticosteroid vehicles. Dermatitis. 2008;19(1):38–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Elwood SA, Martin DG. “Placing” interviews: location and scales of power in qualitative research. Prof Geogr. 2000;52(4):649–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Schönfelder W. CAQDAS and qualitative syllogism logic—NVivo 8 and MAXQDA 10 compared. Forum: Qualitative Soc. Res. 2011;12(1): Article 21.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Timonen J, Heikkilä R, Ahonen R. Generic substitution in Finland: lessons learned during 2003–2008. J Pharm Health Serv Res. 2013;4(3):165–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Suzanne Dunne
    • 1
  • Bill Shannon
    • 1
  • Colum Dunne
    • 1
  • Walter Cullen
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Interventions in Infection, Inflammation and Immunity (4i), Graduate Entry Medical SchoolUniversity of LimerickLimerickIreland

Personalised recommendations