Is There a Relationship Between Patient Beliefs or Communication About Generic Drugs and Medication Utilization?

Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02120, USA.
Medical care (Impact Factor: 3.23). 03/2009; 47(3):319-25. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31818af850
Source: PubMed


Insurers and policymakers strive to stimulate more cost-effective prescribing and, increasingly, are educating beneficiaries about generics.
To evaluate the relationship between patient beliefs and communication about generic drugs and actual drug use.
We performed a national mailed survey of a random sample of 2500 commercially-insured adults. Patient responses were linked to pharmacy claims data to assess actual generic medication use.
We used factor analysis to develop 5 multi-item scales from patient survey responses that measured: (1) general preferences for generics, (2) generic safety/effectiveness, (3) generic cost/value, (4) comfort with generic substitution, and (5) communication with providers about generics. The relationship between each scale and the proportion of prescriptions filled for generics was assessed using linear regression, controlling for demographic, health, and insurance characteristics. Separate models were created for each scale and then all 5 scales were included simultaneously in a fully-adjusted model.
The usable response rate was 48%. When evaluated independently, a 1 SD increase in each of the 5 scales was associated with a 3.1% to 6.3% increase in generic drug use (P < 0.05 for each). In the fully adjusted model, only 2 scales were significantly associated with generic drug use: comfort with generic substitution (P = 0.021) and communication with providers about generic drugs (P = 0.012).
Generic drug use is most closely associated with the 2 actionable items we evaluated: communication with providers about generics and comfort with generic substitution. Educational campaigns that focus on these 2 domains may be most effective at influencing generic drug use.

Download full-text


Available from: Suzanne M Cadarette,
  • Source
    • "Australian patients less frequently used generics for chronic or serious illnesses such as diabetes than for minor illnesses such as allergies (8). Communication with physicians about generics and comfort with generic substitution significantly increased generic use, demonstrating that such barriers could be overcome (9,10). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Using generic medications for chronic diseases provides efficacy similar to that of brand-name medication use, but at a lower price, potentially enhancing adherence. However, previous studies show that disadvantaged people, who may particularly benefit from cost savings, have low trust of generics and increased reluctance to switch to generics. The rural South includes areas of high poverty and minority communities whose members are at high risk for poor health outcomes; however, whether such beliefs exist in these communities has not been reported. We sought to obtain qualitative insight into beliefs about generic medication use among African Americans in the rural South. Investigators conducted 4 focus groups with 30 community members from Alabama's Black Belt area. Transcribed discussions were analyzed and common themes identified. Participants were primarily unemployed middle-aged women, one-fourth of whom were uninsured and more than half of whom had a high school education or less. Barriers to generic medication use included perceptions that generics are less potent than brand-name medications, require higher doses, and, therefore, result in more side effects; generics are not "real" medicine; generics are for minor but not serious illnesses; the medical system cannot be trusted; and poor people are forced to "settle" for generics. Although education about generics could rectify misinformation, overcoming views such as mistrust of the medical system and the sense of having to settle for generics because of poverty may be more challenging. Policy makers and providers should consider these perspectives when working to increase generic drug use in these populations.
    Preventing chronic disease 08/2012; 9(8):E142. DOI:10.5888/pcd9.120010 · 2.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Some physicians and patients have raised concerns over generic versions of critical drugs by claiming a difference in quality and therapeutic efficacy compared to the brand name drug [7–9]. The arguments given are as follows. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The evidence for conversion from brand name to generic equivalent cyclosporine is conflicting. Cyclosporine is a narrow therapeutic-range drug for which small variations in exposure may have severe clinical consequences for transplant patients. There is currently a lack of comparative outcome data relating to the pharmacokinetics of the reference formulation, Neoral, and generic formulations in transplant recipients. A major common concern is the potential inability to attain similar trough levels, an issue that can be easily corrected by ongoing therapeutic drug monitoring to ensure that the new steady state falls within an intended target range. Prospective clinical studies investigating the efficacy and safety of generic formulations in both de novo and long-term transplant patients are also awaited. Until further evidence is available on the conversion of transplant patients to or between generic formulations of cyclosporine, any transfer to a different cyclosporine formulation should be undertaken with close supervision. The best available information to date, however, does not support the frequently held but unsubstantiated belief that generic preparations of immunosuppressive drugs are not as effective as brand names or that conversion from brand to generic is associated with significant danger. This paper attempts to initiate a discussion of these issues.
    Journal of Transplantation 11/2011; 2011(1):480642. DOI:10.1155/2011/480642
  • Source
    • "As explored by for instance Waber et al. there is a significant association between reported effect and price regarding pharmaceutical products [27]. However, many patients accept non-branded generics if they had been approved or prescribed by their doctor [18, 28, 29]. In the case of first-generation immigrants, symmetric information from the different kinds of health professionals tends to be extremely important. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study aims to explore how long-term drug users with a Pakistani background living in Oslo (Norway) perceive generic substitution and how generic substitution influences drug adherence in this population. Personal interviews using a semi-structured questionnaire were carried out with 83 Pakistani immigrants (aged 40-80 years) who were using antihypertensives, antidiabetics, and/or cholesterol-lowering drugs. In all, 73% of the participants were using generic drugs at the time of the interview. Of these, 10% were erroneously using two equivalent generics at the same time. One quarter of the participants were of the opinion that cheaper generic drugs were counterfeit drugs. Two thirds had accepted generic substitution in the pharmacy whereas the remaining participants had either opposed or were unaware of the substitution. Of those who had accepted substitution, 27% claimed that the effect of the new drug was poorer and 20% reported more side-effects. Generic substitution had resulted in concerns about the therapy in 41% of the patients, and 26% thought it had become more demanding to keep track of their medication. Poor adherence tended to be most common among patients who were not fluent in Norwegian, patients who had concerns about medicine use, and patients who had accepted generic substitution in the pharmacy. This study shows that generic substitution may have a negative effect on drug adherence in Pakistani immigrants in Oslo (Norway) because of concerns and misconceptions, including confusion with regard to counterfeit drugs. Problems result primarily from inadequate information caused by language barriers but also from culturally conditioned views on encounters with the health care system.
    European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 02/2011; 67(2):193-201. DOI:10.1007/s00228-010-0960-9 · 2.97 Impact Factor
Show more