SynthesisBMJ open2015
Perceptions of generic medication in the general population, doctors and pharmacists: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
77 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 199 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is There Any Research Evidence Beyond Surveys and Opinion Polls on Automatic Substitution of Biological Medicines? A Systematic Review.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2021Pooled it
- The Association Between Patient Sociodemographic Characteristics and Generic Drug Use: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2018Pooled it
- Comparison of the efficacy and safety of CELBESTA® versus CELEBREX® in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a 6-week, multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, randomized, parallel-group, non-inferiority phase 4 clinical trial.The Journal of international medical research · 2020Trial
- Compared efficacy and tolerance of the neuromuscular blockade induced by brand-name (Nimbex®) and generic (Cisatrex®) of cisatracurium in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: a crossover double-blind randomized study.The Pan African medical journal · 2020Trial
- Real-world comprehensive care of people living with schizophrenia: recommendations across different settings and clinical stages.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2026Article
- Effect of Pharmacist-Led Educational Intervention on Switching to Generic Medicine Among Patients Using Brand-Name Medicines in Japan.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Pharmaceutical quality and cost-effectiveness of branded versus generic medicines across 22 drug types and 8 therapeutic categories: a citizen-funded comparative study from regulated retail outlets in Kerala, India.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Improving medication adherence in cardiovascular disease.The British journal of cardiology · 2026Article
- The perils of politeness: how large language models may amplify medical misinformation.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Not so great expectations: The role of price and name information in the nocebo effect.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2025Article
- Comparison of treatment patterns, efficacy and safety between generic and branded atorvastatin users in China: a multicenter, retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study.Lipids in health and disease · 2025Article
- The effect of attribute framing on beliefs and attitudes toward branded and generic medications.Journal of behavioral medicine · 2025Article
- Strategic behavior and entry deterrence by branded drug firms: the case of authorized generic drugs.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025Article
- Are quality medicines affordable? Evidence from a large survey of medicine price and quality in Indonesia.BMJ global health · 2025Article
- Breaking brand: an observational study on pharmacy-hospital-patient relationships and generic drug utilisation in Japan.BMJ open · 2025Observational
- Intended and Unintended Impacts of '4+7' Volume-Based Drug Procurement on the Use of Drugs in China: A Natural Experimental Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Knowledge and Perception of Consumers Towards Generic Medicines in Saudi Arabia: A Prospective Cross-Sectional Survey.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Article
- Breaking barriers: how generic drugs democratize mental health.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Impact and implications of national centralized drug procurement in China.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2024Article
- Suicide-related risk among patients using branded and generic fluoxetine: a propensity score-matched, new-user design in Taiwan.BMC psychiatry · 2024Article
17 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate negative perceptions about generic medicines and evaluate the proportions of lay people, doctors and pharmacists who hold these perceptions.
designA systematic review of observational studies. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo and Scopus. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Quantitative data from cross-sectional and prospective studies published in English after 1980, using self-report measures to evaluate perceptions about generic medicines, presented as percentages of the total sample assessed.
resultsAfter screening 2737 articles, 52 articles were included in the final analysis. A high proportion of doctors, pharmacists and lay people had negative perceptions of generics. Lay people were significantly more likely to view generics as less effective than branded medication (35.6%, 95% CI 34.8% to 36.4%) compared to doctors (28.7%, 27.5% to 29.9%) and pharmacists (23.6%, 21.2% to 26.2%), p<0.0001. Pharmacists (33.4%, 31.0% to 35.9%) were significantly more likely to believe generics were of inferior quality compared to branded medication than were doctors (28.0%, 26.3% to 29.9%), p=0.0006, and lay people (25.1%, 24.2% to 26.0%), p<0.0001. Doctors believed generics caused more side effects than branded medication (24.4%, 22.2% to 26.9%), compared to pharmacists (17.6%, 15.3% to 20.1%) and lay people (18.8%, 17.8% to 19.8%), p<0.0001. Doctors (28.5%, 26.9% to 30.2%) and pharmacists (25.4%, 21.4% to 29.9%) had significantly more safety concerns about generics than did lay people (18.0%, 17.0% to 19.0%), p ≤ 0.0002. A greater proportion of lay people felt negatively about generic substitution (34.0%, 33.2% to 34.9%), compared to doctors (24.1%, 22.0% to 26.4%) and pharmacists (11.0%, 9.6% to 12.7%), p<0.0001. Rates of negative perceptions of generics do not appear to have changed substantially over time in the general population or among physician groups, p ≥ 0.431, but such negative beliefs show a decreasing trend in pharmacists over the study period, p=0.034.
conclusionsA significant proportion of doctors, pharmacists and lay people hold negative perceptions of generic medicines. It is likely these attitudes present barriers to the wider use of generics.
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.