Consumers' views on generic medicines: A review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To review the literature on consumers' knowledge, attitudes and opinions of the use of generic medicines. METHOD: A narrative review of studies conducted from 1970 to 2008 on consumers perceptions and views towards generic medicines was performed. An extensive literature search was undertaken using indexing services available at the authors' institution library. The following keywords were used for the search: brand, generic, multisource, medications, medicines, drugs, pharmaceuticals and consumers, customers, and patients. Electronic databases searched were Medline, Inside Web, ISI Web of Knowledge, Science Direct, Springer Link, JSTOR, Proquest, Ebsco Host and Google Scholar. These electronic databases were searched for full text papers published in English from 1970 to October 2008. KEY FINDINGS: Twenty studies were identified. Eleven were from the USA, four were from Europe, two were from Canada and one each was from Australia, Brazil and Malaysia. In general, consumers showed mixed reactions towards the use of generic medicines. This was evident from the divergence of views observed by country development level, consumers' socioeconomic characteristics, drug product characteristics, pharmaceutical reimbursement system, policy environment, contact with health care professionals, past experience with medications, and knowledge of the seriousness of a medical condition. CONCLUSIONS: Patient confidence and knowledge pertaining to generic medicines use have increased over the past four decades, especially in developed countries. Mass educational efforts, financial incentives, and greater communication among patients and health care professionals were seen as major drivers to the uptake of generic medicines among consumers.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".