eMJA     The Medical Journal of Australia

Home | Issues | eMJA shop | Classifieds | Contact | More... | Topics | Search | Login | Buy full access   

Letters

A national survey on knowledge and perceptions of senior medical students in Australia about generic medicines

Mohamed Azmi Ahmad Hassali, Kay Stewart and David C M Kong
MJA 2008; 188 (2): 123-124

To the Editor: In Australia, the rising cost of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (a comprehensive system for subsidising prescription medicines for the whole population) has led to the Australian Government instituting a number of cost-saving strategies.

One of these strategies is to encourage the use of generic medicines. However, generic prescribing is a contentious issue among Australian prescribers. The debate has centred on issues related to bioequivalence, quality and safety.1,2 Further, previous studies have shown that changing existing prescribing behaviour is difficult.3,4

To avoid the difficulty of having to change existing prescribing behaviour, education about the benefits of generic prescribing should be aimed at medical students, who are the prescribers of the future.5 To explore and evaluate senior (final-year) medical students’ perceptions of and knowledge about generic medicines and generic prescribing, we undertook a nationwide, web-based survey of senior medical students in Australian universities from 18 June to 18 September 2004. Of 1497 senior medical students in 10 universities throughout Australia, 400 (26.7%) responded to the survey.

The first part of the questionnaire required students to select the correct bioequivalence limits allowed by the Therapeutic Goods Administration when comparing a generic medicine with a brand-name medicine. We compared responses to detect differences according to sex, graduate (students with a Bachelor or higher degree on entry to medical school) versus non-graduate status, and between the 10 universities using Fisher’s exact test. For the first question, six options were given, with the correct answer being 80%–125%. Most respondents (64%) did not answer the question, and only three (0.8%) answered it correctly. Responses to other individual questions in the web survey are shown in the Box. Seventy-one per cent of respondents (287) thought that they needed more information on how bioequivalence tests are conducted. More than 90% of respondents did not believe that generic medicines registered in Australia are equal in terms of quality and efficacy to their brand-name counterparts. A similar proportion of respondents thought that generic medicines would cause more side effects than brand-name medicines. Eighty-seven per cent highlighted pharmacists as one of the most important health care professionals to advise them on generic medicines. Almost 92% of respondents agreed that their future prescribing habits would be likely to be influenced by their senior colleagues and medical consultants. More than 60% believed that their respective university did not adequately cover the topic of cost-effective prescribing in their medical curriculum.

Our survey clearly shows that medical students in Australia need to be better taught about issues relating to generic medicines and generic prescribing. Modifying existing curricula to include education about generic medicines will be a critical strategy towards promoting rational use of generic medicines by medical practitioners.

Responses to questions assessing knowledge and perceptions of senior medical students in Australia about generic medicines and bioequivalence

Responses


P (Fisher’s exact test)


Survey question/statement

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Sex

Graduate status*

University


All generic products of a particular medicine that are rated as “generic equivalents” are:

therapeutically equivalent to the innovator brand product

66 (16.5%)

276 (69.0%)

18 (4.5%)

36 (9.0%)

4 (1.0%)

0.692

0.094

0.096

therapeutically equivalent to each other

4 (1.0%)

49 (12.3%)

23 (5.8%)

263 (65.8%)

61 (15.3%)

0.846

0.998

0.107

I have not been introduced to the issues of bioequivalence for generic drugs during my medical education

120 (30.0%)

153 (38.3%)

47 (11.8%)

69 (17.3%)

11 (2.8%)

0.703

0.893

0.010

I need more information on how bioequivalence tests are conducted for generic medicines

73 (18.3%)

214 (53.5%)

74 (18.5%)

34 (8.5%)

5 (1.3%)

0.036

0.572

0.195

A generic medicine is bioequivalent to a brand-name medicine

79 (19.8%)

270 (67.5%)

18 (4.5%)

30 (7.5%)

3 (0.8%)

0.574

0.943

0.827

A generic medicine must be in the same dosage form (eg, tablet, capsule) as the brand-name medicine

27 (6.8%)

106 (26.5%)

52 (13.0%)

196 (49.0%)

19 (4.8%)

0.751

0.677

0.152

A generic medicine must contain the same dose as the brand-name medicine

47 (11.8%)

171 (42.8%)

44 (11.0%)

126 (31.5%)

12 (3.0%)

0.919

0.905

0.048

Generic medicines are of inferior quality to brand-name drugs

148 (37.0%)

226 (56.5%)

20 (5.0%)

5 (1.3%)

1 (0.3%)

0.006

0.944

0.054

Generic medicines are less effective than brand-name medicines

151 (37.8%)

228 (57.0%)

19 (4.8%)

1 (0.3%)

1 (0.3%)

0.029

0.124

0.010

Generic medicines produce more side effects than brand-name medicines

148 (37.0%)

222 (55.5%)

26 (6.5%)

3 (0.8%)

1 (0.3%)

0.052

0.619

0.023

Generic medicines are less expensive than brand-name medicines

165 (41.3%)

215 (53.8%)

9 (2.3%)

9 (2.3%)

2 (0.5%)

0.190

0.154

0.072

Brand-name medicines are required to meet higher safety standards than generic medicines

112 (28.0%)

219 (54.8%)

42 (10.5%)

22 (5.5%)

5 (1.3%)

0.747

0.843

0.162


* Comparing graduate (those with a Bachelor or higher degree on entry to medical school) with non-graduate students. Differences between the 10 universities represented.

Mohamed Azmi Ahmad Hassali, Lecturer1 (formerly, PhD Candidate2)Kay Stewart, Associate Professor2David C M Kong, Lecturer2

1 Discipline of Social and Administrative Pharmacy, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia.

2 Department of Pharmacy Practice, Victorian College of Pharmacy, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC.

azmihassaliATusm.my

  1. McGavock H. Generic substitution: issues relating to the Australian experience. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2001; 10: 555-556. <PubMed>
  2. Birkett DJ. Generics — equal or not? Aust Prescr 2003; 26: 85-87.
  3. Salmivaara AH, Huupponen R, Klaukka T, Hoppu K. Focusing on changing clinical practice to enhance rational prescribing — collaboration and networking enable comprehensive approaches. Health Policy 2003; 66: 1-10. <PubMed>
  4. Armstrong D, Reyburn H, Jones R. A study of general practitioners’ reasons for changing their prescribing behaviour. BMJ 1996; 312: 949-952. <PubMed>
  5. Majumdar SR, Tsuyuki RT, McAlister FA. Impact of opinion leader-endorsed evidence summaries on the quality of prescribing for patients with cardiovascular disease: a randomized controlled trial. Am Heart J 2007; 153: 22e1-22e8.

(Received 21 May 2007, accepted 3 Sep 2007)

Home | Issues | eMJA shop | Terms of use | Classifieds | More... | Contact | Topics | Search

The Medical Journal of Australia    eMJA  

©The Medical Journal of Australia 2008 www.mja.com.au PRINT ISSN: 0025-729X ONLINE ISSN: 1326-5377