No abstract

BackgroundGeneric drugs (GDs) offer a way to reduce health spending without sacrificing quality. Despite this, there are doubts as to their acceptance by the population. This work aims to assess perceptions of GDs among the Brazilian population.MethodsWe conducted a national household survey face-to-face between April and May 2013, with 5000 individuals aged over 15 years. The questions explored socioeconomic and demographic characteristics, the use of GDs, and perceptions about GDs as compared to brand drugs (BDs). The chi-square test was used to examine the associations between the perceptions and the characteristics of the population.ResultsOf the 5000 participants, 51.3% were women, 40.2% were white, 48.6% were between 15 and 34 years of age, and 52.3% had income of less than two minimum wages (US$627.78). In terms of the use of GDs, 44.6% of the participants were taking or had taken GDs in the past three months, with the highest figures among the elderly (61.1%) and female (49.2%) populations. Regarding perceptions, 30.4% of the respondents considered GDs less effective than BDs; provided the same price, 59% would prefer BD, and 45.8% agreed that physicians prefer to prescribe GDs. The most negative perceptions about GDs were observed among lower income, elderly and nonwhite populations.ConclusionThe findings provide a better understanding of Brazilians’ perceptions regarding GDs. This should be considered when formulating healthcare policies aiming at improving access to effective and quality drugs, and reduction of health costs.

From this point forward, we can provide the basis for comparisons with future research that use the SF-12 for quality of life assessment in Brazil. The Brazilian population has a lower degree of quality of life related do the physical component, and the SF-12 is a useful and discriminative instrument for assessing quality of life in different socio-demographic groups.

The objective of this study was to assess the perceptions of opinion-leaders, patients and their accompanying family members or carers about generic drugs. Three groups of participants were surveyed: (i) 50 customers while they were visiting commercial pharmacies located in São Paulo city, Brazil, (ii) 25 patients and 25 companions while they were waiting at the university outpatient clinic, and (iii) 50 healthcare opinion-leaders from government, hospitals, health plans, academia, and pharmaceutical companies. The questions explored socio-demographic characteristics and perceptions regarding value attributes of generic drugs compared to brand name drugs. Respondents had an average age of 52 years and 53% were women. Respondents believed generic drugs to be cheaper than brand name drugs (97%), and 31% thought generic drugs to be less effective than brand name drugs. Also, generic drugs were perceived by 54% of respondents to be as safe as brand name drugs and 74% would prefer brand name drugs if there was no price difference. In conclusion, multiple factors may contribute to the decision to buy generic drugs; among these, perceived effectiveness, safety and price appear to be the most important factors.

No abstract

Objective. To analyze the value judgments behind cost–benefit tradeoffs made by health stakeholders in deciding whether or not to incorporate new health technologies and how they should be financed and allocated in limited-resource settings in Brazil. Method. From June 2009 to January 2010, a sample of stakeholders in the public and private health sector was identified and invited to complete an online survey consisting of two questionnaires: one collecting socio-demographic/professional information and one capturing resource allocation preferences in four hypothetical scenarios for the incorporation of new health technologies. Results. A total of 193 respondents completed the survey; more than half were male (53.9%) and the most common age group was 31–40 years (36.8%). Scenario 1 (incorporation of a new drug treatment for chronic disease, by reducing/eliminating resources for existing programs) was rejected by 49.2% of the survey sample, who preferred to maintain the status quo for existing programs. Scenario 2 (incorporation of the same new treatment, but financed by a new tax) was rejected by 58.0%. Scenario 3 (incorporation of a new treatment for a highly lethal disease, by age group—20–75 years versus 75+ years—by reducing/eliminating resources for existing programs), was rejected by 42.0%, while 20.7% supported allocations for both groups, 34.2% supported allocations exclusively for the 20–75-year age group, and 3.1% supported allocations exclusively for the 75+ year age group. For Scenario 4, which consisted of five different resource allocations for prevention and treatment programs for another highly lethal disease, the most preferred option (chosen by 50.8% of respondents) was 75%:25% (prevention versus treatment). Conclusions. When incorporating a new health technology requires reducing/eliminating other health programs, financing it through a tax, or having to choose certain age groups (e.g., younger, working people versus older people), respondents are likely to reject it. When offered the choice of limiting the scope of the program (e.g., prevention versus treatment), respondents are likely to favor prevention. This was the first study in Brazil to capture value judgments that affect stakeholder decision-making on various resource allocations for different scenarios for health technology introduction in limited-resource settings. Future research should investigate the perspective of society as a whole to determine the best approach for decision-making based on common values and consensus within a particular health care system.

No abstract

No abstract