ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Unaware and unpowered: evaluating patient perceptions and preferences of biosimilars in South Korea.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. 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.
- Health literacy and biosimilar acceptance in people with multiple sclerosis: a cross-sectional study.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- A comparative analysis of biologics market dynamics in 12 countries: (Bio)similar and sustainability.Frontiers in pharmacology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Biosimilars offer a promising solution to challenges related to healthcare budget sustainability. However, limited patient awareness and understanding often hinder their timely adoption. This cross-sectional survey evaluates the perceptions, preferences, and experiences of South Korean patients regarding biosimilars. Methods: An anonymous, self-administered, web-based survey comprising up to 26 questions was conducted. Participants were recruited from Ewha Womans University Medical Centers from November 2023 to August 2024. The analysis focused on respondents with medical conditions typically treated with biologics, such as solid tumors, blood cancers, and autoimmune diseases. Results: Out of 133 responses, 100 were analyzed after excluding 33 individuals with irrelevant medical conditions. Among these, 66% had heard of biosimilars, primarily through the internet (28.8%, 19 out of 66). However, 55% were unfamiliar with the definition of biosimilars, and 61% did not understand the difference between generics and biosimilars. While most respondents considered biosimilars comparable to originators in terms of safety (45%) and efficacy (41%), the primary concerns were a lack of confidence in their safety (50%) and efficacy (50%). Among patients who exclusively used either originators or biosimilars, 91.7% and 95%, respectively, cited their doctors' recommendations as the main reason for choosing their treatment. Conclusion: Patients primarily rely on doctors' recommendations, yet their awareness and understanding of biosimilars remain limited. To enhance positive perceptions of biosimilars among patients, implementing diverse educational programs and actively involving a multidisciplinary health team is essential. Such initiatives will not only increase patient access to these treatments but also contribute to the long-term sustainability of healthcare systems by encouraging the broader adoption of biosimilars.
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.