Trial reportJournal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM2025
Perceptions and Preferences for Defining Biosimilar Products in Prescription Drug Promotion.
Trial report in Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM, 2025. 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.
- Research on the Social Context of Medicine and the Modern Family Physician.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFMArticle
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
backgroundPrescription biosimilars are highly similar to and have no clinically meaningful differences from existing FDA-approved reference products. Despite increased availability in the marketplace, consumers and clinician lack awareness of these products. Our study experimentally tested understanding of and preference for brief descriptions of biosimilars in the form of disclosure statements in a fictitious prescription drug advertisement.
methodsConsumers (n = 379) and HCPs (n = 368) viewed a mock advertisement and responded to an online survey. Study participants were randomized to 1 of 7 biosimilar disclosure definitions or a control. Disclosure conditions varied with regard to 1) identifying the product as a biosimilar; 2) information provided in the definition; and 3) naming the reference product. We tested the effects of disclosure conditions on comprehension, perceptions, attitudes, intentions, and preferences.
resultsOverall, comprehension of information in the biosimilar disclosure was less than optimal (48.5%-62.0% and 68.4%-88.4% for consumers and HCPs, respectively), even when provided with a definition. Perceptions of benefit, comparative efficacy, and safety were neutral. Content of the biosimilar definition generally did not influence outcomes, except that HCPs reported more positive attitudes toward the biosimilar and stronger intentions to prescribe when provided with expanded definitions. Both groups preferred the expanded definitions, and HCPs preferred seeing a named reference product. HCPs generally agreed with a statement that biosimilars could be used "interchangeably" with the reference product.
conclusionsOur findings signal some knowledge gaps and uncertainty regarding biosimilars among consumers and HCPs. Further education is warranted around these products, and communications for both groups require careful testing to ensure that the information is understood and does not result in a negative perception of the product.
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.