ArticleMedical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran2024
Physicians' Knowledge and Attitude about Generic Drugs in the Republic of Kazakhstan.
Article in Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Validation of Kazakh and Russian Generic Drug Questionnaire.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: One of the most effective measures to reduce the cost of medicines for both the healthcare system and patients is the use of generic drugs (GDs). The objective of this study was to identify the physicians' level of knowledge and attitude toward GDs. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted based on a specially designed validated questionnaire of 19 items. The survey was attended by doctors of various specialties working in polyclinics in six regions in the Republic of Kazakhstan. Construct validity was assessed through principal component factor analysis, whereas reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Group differences were assessed using Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric tests when comparing two and more than two groups, respectively. Results: The study involved 450 physicians. Only 260 (57.8%) believed that GDs are bioequivalent to the brand name drug (strongly agree and agree). About 202 (45%) of respondents doubt the effectiveness of GDs, and 144 (32%) assumed that they cause more side effects compared to similar branded drugs. Also, the majority of the respondents 320 (71.2%) felt that branded drugs should be held to higher safety standards than GDs. Approximately 338 (75%) of the physicians positively expressed that both physicians and pharmacists need standardized guidelines for the brand name substitution process. Further, 372 (82.7%) proposed that more information about the safety and efficacy of GD is needed. Also, 326 (72.4%), 314 (88.2%), and 85 (18.9%) of the respondents assumed that patients' socio-economic factors, trust in manufacturers/suppliers, and bonuses on products respectively influence the prescribing of medicines. Conclusion: Although the study indicated that physicians in the Republic of Kazakhstan are acknowledging the use of GDs, concerns about the effectiveness and safety of GDs remain high. To enhance the use of GDs, physicians' targeted educational programs on GDs' bioequivalence, safety, and efficacy should be implemented.
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.