ArticleBMC health services research2025
Patient knowledge and acceptance of the upcoming automatic substitution of biological medicines in community pharmacies: survey of Finnish patients with inflammatory bowel disease and psoriasis.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundAutomatic substitution of biological medicines in community pharmacies is among the policy measures to contain increasing pharmaceutical costs, with gradual implementation starting in Finland in 2024. It is important to study patient knowledge of biological medicines, biosimilars, and substitution, as they have an impact on the success of automatic substitution. However, there is a paucity of studies focusing on patients’ perspectives on automatic substitution in pharmacies, and the existing studies report varying patients’ opinions. Thus, the aim of the study was to (1) describe patients’ knowledge of biological medicines, biosimilars, and automatic substitution of biological medicines, (2) analyze the association of sociodemographic and health-related factors with the knowledge of biosimilars, and (3) investigate associations between knowledge, trust in pharmacists, and acceptance of automatic substitution in pharmacies.
methodsAn online survey was conducted in 2023 among patients aged ≥ 18 years with Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, indeterminate colitis, psoriasis, pustular psoriasis, or psoriatic arthritis. Cross-tabulation, the chi-square test, and logistic regression analysis were utilized in the analysis.
resultsA total of 1211 participants completed the survey and were included in the analysis. Of them, 89.4% had heard of biological medicines and 43.0% of biosimilars before the survey. Biosimilar was defined correctly by 60.9%, which associated with, for example, use of original biological medicines (OR 1.57, CI 1.14–2.16) compared to being biological naïve. Of the participants, 37.3% had heard of the upcoming substitution of biological medicines in pharmacies. The upcoming substitution was considered a good reform by 38.2%. However, some participants were unsure (14.4%) or did not know enough about the topic (27.5%). The opinion whether the automatic substitution is a good reform was associated with incorrect knowledge of biosimilars. However, the trust in pharmacists’ proficiency to substitute a biological medicine was not associated with the knowledge of biosimilars.
conclusionsThe majority of the participants had not heard of biosimilars or the substitution of biological medicines before the survey, and furthermore, incorrect knowledge of biosimilars was associated with the opinion that automatic substitution is a good reform. Healthcare providers should prioritize patient education on biosimilars to improve acceptance of substitution.
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.