Patients’ Perceptions about Substitution of a Reference Drug while in Hospital: Focus on H2-Receptor Antagonists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective: To assess patients’ perceptions about substitution of a reference drug (H2-receptor antagonist) with a formulary alternative while in the hospital. Methods: This study consisted of standardized patient interviews conducted over a 6-week period. Eligible, consenting patients admitted to the Vancouver General Hospital site of the Vancouver Hospital and Health Sciences Centre who were given a prescription for an H2-receptor antagonist were interviewed to determine patient characteristics, history of H2-receptor antagonist use, and understanding and opinion of reference-based pricing. Results: Forty-one (46%) of the 89 eligible patients consented to participate. Twenty-eight (68%) of the participants were receiving ranitidine at the time of admission to hospital, and 12 of the remaining 13 were converted to ranitidine from another H2-receptor antagonist (cimetidine) at the time of admission. Eighteen patients (44%) were aware of the reference- based pricing policy, but 4 (10%) were only familiar with the program’s name. Of the 12 patients for whom therapy was converted from cimetidine to ranitidine, only 5 (42%) appeared to be aware that their H2-receptor antagonist had been changed, and 7 (58%) claimed to feel the same or better while taking ranitidine in hospital. After participants were notified of the conversion by the investigator, the median satisfaction rating of the conversion from one H2-receptor antagonist to another was 5 (range 1 to 5; maximum score 10). In addition, 7 (58%) stated no particular preference for either H2-receptor antagonist. On discharge, 36 (88%) of the patients resumed taking the H2-receptor antagonist that they had been using before admission. Conclusion: Despite the influence of the reference-based pricing policy on use of H2-receptor antagonists in the community, more than half of interviewed patients were taking ranitidine before admission to this hospital. Of those converted from cimetidine to ranitidine during their hospital stay, none identified any problems associated with the change. Once discharged from the hospital, most patients resumed their previous H2-receptor antagonist therapy. RESUME Objectif : Evaluer la perception qu’a les patients hospitalises de la substitution d’un medicament de reference (inhibiteur des recepteurs H2) par un medicament inscrit au formulaire. Methodes : Menager des entrevues standards avec le patient sur une periode de six semaines. Les patients consentants et admissibles a l’etude, qui etaient hospitalises au Vancouver General Hospital, du Vancouver Hospital and Health Sciences Centre, et qui ont recu une ordonnance d’inhibiteur des recepteurs H2, ont ete interviewes pour determiner leurs caracteristiques, leurs antecedents d’usage d’inhibiteurs des recepteurs H2, leur comprehension de la methode du prix de reference et leur opinion sur cette methode. Resultats : Quarante et un (46 %) des 89 patients admissibles ont consenti a participer a l’etude. De ces participants, 28 (68 %) ont recu de la ranitidine apres avoir ete hospitalises et 12 des 13 autres patients ont recu de la ranitidine comme substitut a leur inhibiteur des recepteurs H2 (la cimetidine). Dixhuit patients (44 %) connaissaient la politique du prix de reference, alors que 4 (10 %) n’etaient que familiers avec le nom de ce programme. Des 12 patients dont le traitement a la cimetidine a ete substitue par la ranitidine, seulement 5 (42 %) semblaient savoir qu’on leur avait substitue leur inhibiteur des recepteurs H2, et 7 (58 %) ont declare se sentir aussi bien sinon mieux avec la ranitidine qu’avec leur inhibiteur des recepteurs H2. Apres que les chercheurs aient informe les patients de la substitution, le taux de satisfaction moyen etait de 5 (variation de 1 a 5; cote maximale de 10). En outre, 7 (58 %) patients ont dit n’avoir aucune preference particuliere pour l’un ou l’autre inhibiteur des recepteurs H2. A leur sortie, 36 (88%) patients ont recommence a prendre l’inhibiteur des recepteurs H2 qu’ils utilisaient avant d’avoir ete hospitalises. Conclusion : Malgre l’effet de la methode du prix de reference sur l’usage des inhibiteurs des recepteurs H2 dans la communaute, plus de la moitie des patients qui ont ete interviewes prenaient de la ranitidine avant leur hospitalisation. Des patients qui sont passes de la cimetidine a la ranitidine durant leur sejour a l’hopital, aucun n’a releve de problemes associes a la substitution. Apres leur sortie, la plupart des patients ont recommence a prendre les inhibiteurs des recepteurs H2 qu’ils prenaient auparavant.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".