ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2016
Patients' knowledge and attitude towards therapeutic reference pricing system in Slovenia.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient views of therapeutic interchange of ACE inhibitors in Australian primary care: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Introduction of therapeutic reference pricing in Slovenia and its economic consequences.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background The therapeutic reference pricing (TRP) in Slovenia was implemented for proton pump inhibitors in 2013 and for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and lipid-lowering medicines in 2014. Objective The study aimed to assess patients' knowledge and attitude towards the TRP system. Moreover, the patients' willingness to pay was evaluated for patients who rejected the substitution of a current medicine within a therapeutic class by the reference medicine for which no co-payment is needed. Setting Invitation of patients to participate in a survey and filling in the first part of the questionnaire was run in the community pharmacies in Slovenia. The second part of the questionnaire was filled in at patients' home. Method A representative sample of 676 patients that had been prescribed at least one medicine from the three therapeutic classes was surveyed. The survey was carried out from 15th May to 15th June 2014 in 40 community pharmacies with the help of the pharmacists, who filled in the first part of the questionnaire in the presence of the patients. The second part of the questionnaire was filled in by 475 patients at home and returned by prepaid mail. Main outcome measure Patients' knowledge of and attitude to the TRP system implemented into Slovenian health care practice. Results Most of the statements describing patient' rights and duties within the TRP system were known by approximately 50 % of the patients. Patients were inhomogeneous in their view about the necessity and benefits of the TRP system, most of them regarded it as an unnecessary burden. Among 50.4 % of the patients who were required to copay for their medicine, 46.7 % accepted and 3.7 % rejected co-payment. The average co-payment was € 6.92, while the expressed average willingness to co-pay was € 10.4 per 3 months of therapy. Conclusion Our results indicate that the implementation of the TRP system and potential upgrades represent a significant challenge for the patients.
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.