↓ Skip to main content

What do people really think of generic medicines? A systematic review and critical appraisal of literature on stakeholder perceptions of generic drugs

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
34 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
120 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
264 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
What do people really think of generic medicines? A systematic review and critical appraisal of literature on stakeholder perceptions of generic drugs
Published in
BMC Medicine, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0415-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Suzanne S. Dunne, Colum P. Dunne

Abstract

Considerable emphasis is presently being placed on usage of generic medicines by governments focussed on the potential economic benefits associated with their use. Concurrently, there is increasing discussion in the lay media of perceived doubts regarding the quality and equivalence of generic medicines. The objective of this paper is to report the outcomes of a systematic search for peer-reviewed, published studies that focus on physician, pharmacist and patient/consumer perspectives of generic medicines. Literature published between January 2003 and November 2014, which is indexed in PubMed and Scopus, on the topic of opinions of physicians, pharmacists and patients with respect to generic medicines was searched, and articles within the scope of this review were appraised. Search keywords used included perception, opinion, attitude and view, along with keywords specific to each cohort. Following review of titles and abstracts to identify publications relevant to the scope, 16 papers on physician opinions, 11 papers on pharmacist opinions and 31 papers on patient/consumer opinions were included in this review. Quantitative studies (n = 37) were the most common approach adopted by researchers, generally in the form of self-administered questionnaires/surveys. Qualitative methodologies (n = 15) were also reported, albeit in fewer cases. In all three cohorts, opinions of generic medicines have improved but some mistrust remains, most particularly in the patient group where there appears to be a strongly held belief that less expensive equals lower quality. Acceptance of generics appears to be higher in consumers with higher levels of education while patients from lower socioeconomic demographic groups, hence generally having lower levels of education, tend to have greater mistrust of generics. A key factor in improving confidence in generic products is the provision of information and education, particularly in the areas of equivalency, regulation and dispelling myths about generic medicines (such as the belief that they are counterfeits). Further, as patient trust in their physician often overrules their personal mistrust of generic medicines, enhancing the opinions of physicians regarding generics may have particular importance in strategies to promote usage and acceptance of generic medicines in the future.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 264 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 <1%
Unknown 263 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 52 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 10%
Student > Bachelor 26 10%
Researcher 25 9%
Other 16 6%
Other 45 17%
Unknown 74 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 56 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 47 18%
Social Sciences 15 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 14 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 10 4%
Other 38 14%
Unknown 84 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 71. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 January 2022.
All research outputs
#601,485
of 25,506,250 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#442
of 4,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,872
of 275,630 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#12
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,506,250 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,035 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 275,630 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.