ArticleAtencion primaria2003
[Views of primary care users concerning generic medicines and the cost of medication].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Innovating on Inhaled Bioequivalence: A Critical Analysis of the Current Limitations, Potential Solutions and Stakeholders of the Process.Pharmaceutics · 2021Review
- Physicians' and patients' opinions on the use of generic drugs.Journal of pharmacology & pharmacotherapeutics · 2012Article
- [Do we primary care doctors improve our prescription of generic medicines after the intervention of the area pharmacist?].Atencion primaria · 2006Article
- [Substitution of generic for brand medicines in primary care. Factors associated to refuse the change].Atencion primaria · 2005Article
- [Generic drugs again].Atencion primaria · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess primary care users' views on generic drugs, approach to them and degree of understanding of them; and to find the importance they attach to the economic cost of medication.
designTransversal, descriptive study.
settingPrimary care.
participantsA sample of 231 patients was selected from all the people over 18 who attended the health centre for medical consultation during 2001.
results60% (95% CI, 55.22%-67.42%) of those surveyed said they had heard of generic medicines. The communications media were the main source of information, accounting for 78.4% of cases (95% CI, 69.19%-83.96%). 48.04% (95% CI, 38.04%-58.16%) of those who had heard of generic medicines had taken them on some occasion; and 32.4% (95% CI, 23.42%-42.34%) normally took them. 76.47% (95% CI, 67.04%-84.30%) did not mind or, where appropriate, would not mind if their doctor changed a medicine they normally took for a generic one. The mean age of those who did not mind was significantly lower than that of those who did. 50% (95% CI, 42.25%-52.75%) of those questioned were very interested in the cost of drugs prescribed by their doctors: people still working were more interested than those on a pension. 67.6% (95% CI, 60.06%-74.61%) believed that doctors should try to prescribe the cheapest drugs, as long as they were equally efficacious. 78.8% of those questioned (95% CI, 71.91%-84.70%) would choose the cheaper of two drugs which were the same bar the cost.
conclusionsMost patients in our study were aware of generic drugs and were not against the replacement of a medicine they were already taking by a generic one. They did not relate drugs' cost to their quality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.