A mixed-methods study investigating the potential and challenges of generic substitution of controlled substances in community pharmacies.

I M Keller, J M Alexa, M W Meier, S S Allemann

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

I M KellerPharmaceutical Care Research Group, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Basel, Spitalstrasse 41, 4056 Basel, Switzerland.

J M AlexaPharmaceutical Care Research Group, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Basel, Spitalstrasse 41, 4056 Basel, Switzerland.

M W MeierQuality Management Consultant, Blisterman Consulting GmbH, Spiez, Allmendweg 21, 3705 Faulensee, Switzerland.

S S AllemannPharmaceutical Care Research Group, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Basel, Spitalstrasse 41, 4056 Basel, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Using generics became an established practice. Studies about dispensing practices of generic controlled substances are scarce. Objective: We investigated dispensing practices of generic controlled substances compared to non-controlled substances, challenges community pharmacists face when substituting them, and how they can be better supported. Methods: A mixed-methods approach was employed. We descriptively analyzed prescribing and dispensing rates of originals and generics of controlled and non-controlled substances. Ten community pharmacists were interviewed to investigate challenges and support options. Results: Seven hundred eight prescriptions were included in the data analysis. Physicians prescribed 54 % (167/307) of originals for controlled substances and 50 % (202/401) of originals for non-controlled substances ( Conclusion: The analysis revealed a significantly lower substitution rate for controlled substances compared to non-controlled substances in pharmacies. Yet, physicians showed similar prescribing rates of originals and generics. The findings support the need to strengthen the collaboration between healthcare providers, and to improve education as well as awareness to ensure adequate patient care when substituting generic controlled substances.

Indexed as

BioequivalenceCommunity pharmacyControlled substancesGeneric substitutionPharmacy practicePharmacy research

Identifiers

PMID40585784

DOI10.1016/j.rcsop.2025.100622

PMCPMC12206124

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.