↓ Skip to main content

“No generics, Doctor!” The perspective of general practitioners in two French regions

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
“No generics, Doctor!” The perspective of general practitioners in two French regions
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2682-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Béatrice Riner, Adèle Bussy, Jeannie Hélène-Pelage, Nycrees Moueza, Sébastien Lamy, Philippe Carrère

Abstract

Generic medicines are essential to controlling health expenditures. Their market share is still small in France. The discourse and practices of prescribers may play a major role in their use. The purpose of this study was to explore the knowledge, attitudes and practices of general practitioners (GPs) toward generic medicines in two French regions with the lowest penetration rate of these products. An observational study was carried out from October 2015 to February 2016 in Guadeloupe and Martinique. The first qualitative phase involved a diversified sample of 14 GPs who underwent semi-structured interviews. The second phase involved a random sample of 316 GPs (response rate = 74%) who were administered a structured questionnaire developed from the results of the first phase. Seventy-eight percent of the participants defined a generic drug as a drug containing an active substance identical to a brand-name drug, but only 11% considered generic drugs to be equivalent to brand-name drugs, and the same proportion believed that the generic drugs were of doubtful quality. The primary recognized advantage of generic medicines was their lower cost (82%). The main drawbacks cited were the variability of their presentation (44%), the confusion that they caused for some patients (47%), frequent allegations of adverse side effects (37%) and a lack of efficacy (24%), and frequent refusal by patients (26%). Seventy-four percent of the participants stated that they adapted their prescribing practices to the situation, and of this group, 47% prescribed the originator product simply on demand. Most surveyed GPs were not hostile towards generic medicines. They were caught between the requirements of health insurance regimes and the opposition of numerous users and suggested that the patient information provided by health authorities should be improved and that drug composition and packaging should be made uniform.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 20%
Other 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Lecturer 4 7%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 17 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 7%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 19 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 December 2023.
All research outputs
#15,760,880
of 24,955,994 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,643
of 8,445 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,304
of 337,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#79
of 111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,955,994 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,445 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 337,687 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 111 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.