Patient and caregiver opinions about an FDA-developed generic drug educational handout: A pilot cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVE: To examine patient and caregiver opinions and "receptivity" regarding generic drug educational material in terms of content, format and design, delivery channel, and level of satisfaction. METHODS: Interviewer-administered surveys were conducted with patients and caregivers who were clients of a regional medication management program or pharmacy services clinic to gather perceptions about generic drugs and input on a generic drug educational handout developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Survey questions were developed by the investigators and pretested before use. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and responses to open-ended questions were assessed using qualitative content analysis. Survey psychometrics were examined using exploratory factor analysis (EFA). RESULTS: Of the 100 survey participants, most (93%) had positive perceptions about generic drug safety and effectiveness after reading the handout. Most participants were satisfied or very satisfied with the handout's content (87%) as well as format and design (92%). However, more than 20% of participants were still unsure about the benefits and risks of generic drugs compared with those of brand drugs, and more than 15% were still unsure about which benefits and risks mattered most to them. The participants' preferred source for the handout was a pharmacy (49%) or doctor's office (27%). In an EFA of the survey instrument, 2 factors emerged related to the educational handout's content: (1) generic drug information, a 7-item factor (Cronbach alpha = 0.882); and (2) personal relevance, a 3-item factor (Cronbach alpha = 0.692). CONCLUSION: The findings indicate an overall positive "receptiveness" toward generic drug informational materials from patients and caregivers, which highlights the feasibility and importance of educational outreach programs about generic drugs targeted toward this population. Future studies may focus on more diverse populations and tailor materials to the needs of specific patient and caregiver subgroups and health literacy levels.

Comparing faculty evaluations of student journal club presentations with student self- and peer evaluations during advanced pharmacy practice experiences.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Self-evaluation is a critical step in professional development. Peer evaluation may enhance student learning and help peer evaluators recognize their own limitations. However, these evaluations may not accurately assess performance. This study's purpose is to evaluate differences between faculty, self-, and peer evaluations of student journal club (JC) presentations during advanced pharmacy practice experiences (APPEs). EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY AND SETTING: Student JC presentations for three APPE sites were identified between May 2015 and April 2018 and included if at least one faculty, self-, and peer evaluation were complete. Overall grades and individual rubric ratings were compared. FINDINGS: Seventy-four students had complete data sets. The mean overall scores for JC presentations were 82.72%, 86.05%, and 91.01% for faculty, self-, and peer evaluations, respectively. Self-evaluation ratings were significantly higher than faculty on each domain, except for "presentation and communication skills" (mean difference: -0.2, p = .034) and "ability to answer questions" (mean difference: -0.1, p = .247). Linear regression showed a statistically significant relationship between self-evaluation and faculty evaluation ratings for ability to answer questions (beta = 0.5, p < .001). Peer evaluation ratings were significantly higher than faculty and self-evaluations (p < .05). SUMMARY: Faculty scores on JC presentations completed during APPEs were lower compared to student evaluations of themselves and their peers. Further incorporation of self- and peer evaluation throughout pharmacy school curricula may improve student competence in performing these evaluations. Formal training is needed to improve students' ability to complete self and peer evaluations.

Healthcare provider opinions about a generic drug educational newsletter.

BACKGROUND: Increasing the prescribing and dispensing of generic drugs, compared to branded drugs, may increase patient access to affordable drug treatments. Healthcare providers have information needs regarding generic drugs, but available, tailored education materials designed for provider use are lacking. OBJECTIVES: To examine healthcare provider opinions and receptivity regarding generic drug educational materials in content, format and design, delivery channel, and level of satisfaction. METHODS: A national online survey was conducted in summer 2018 to gather practicing healthcare prescribers' (i.e., physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants) and pharmacists' opinions on an educational newsletter developed through a collaboration between the investigators and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Quantitative analyses were performed using SPSS version 24 (IBM, Armonk, NY), while responses to open-ended questions were assessed using qualitative content analysis in Excel. RESULTS: A total of 208 surveys were completed. Overall, participants expressed positive opinions about the newsletter's content and format/design. About 69% of prescribers and 60% of pharmacists stated the newsletter gave information that will help them better serve patients. While 15% of surveyed pharmacists stated that they did not have resources to help them get information on generic drug availability and cost, more prescribers (37%) responded similarly. Both prescribers and pharmacists preferred to receive this newsletter via email from the FDA or a professional association. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate the feasibility of educational outreach programs about generic drugs targeted towards healthcare providers. There is room for improvement in making prescribers and pharmacists aware of resources for learning about generic drug availability and cost. Future studies may test alternate versions of the newsletter that have been tailored to the needs of specific provider specialties or provider practices serving specific patient sub-groups, as well as preferred dissemination frequency.

Communicating benefits and risks of generic drugs to consumers: Patient and caregiver opinions of two FDA-developed educational materials.

BACKGROUND: Increasing prescribing and dispensing of generic drugs, compared to brand drugs, may increase patient access to affordable medications. However, little is known about patients' and caregivers' needs and receptiveness regarding the design of educational materials about generic drugs. METHODS: The research used focus groups of patients and caregivers who were students or employees of one university in the Southeastern U.S. to gather input on the optimal content, format and design, delivery channel, and level of satisfaction for two existing, FDA-developed educational materials about generic drugs (infographic and brochure). RESULTS: Participants stated a need for the materials to modernize their graphics, emphasize generic drug cost-savings for consumers, reduce scare tactics when discussing adverse events, and be disseminated directly from physician's offices and pharmacies. Despite an overall positive impression of the materials, participants wanted more consumer-oriented materials that were tailored to fit the needs of different types of patients/caregivers, including older adults. CONCLUSIONS: This paper discusses how these findings relate to theories of multimedia learning and guidelines for designing health educational materials, as well as implications for the development of tailored generic drug educational materials for use in public health campaigns to improve access to medication therapy.

Disclosure of industry payments to prescribers: industry payments might be a factor impacting generic drug prescribing.

PURPOSE: Pharmaceutical companies paid at least $3.91bn to prescribers in 2013, yet evidence indicating whether industry payments shift prescribing away from generics is limited. This study examined the association between amount of industry payments to prescribers and generic drug prescribing rates among Medicare Part D prescribers. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted among 770 095 Medicare Part D prescribers after linking the 2013 national Open Payments data with 2013 Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment data. The exposure variable was the categorized amount of total industry payments to prescribers (i.e., meals, travel, research, and ownership). The outcome was prescriber's annual generic drug prescribing rate. Multivariable generalized linear regression models were used to examine the association between the amount of industry payments and prescriber's annual generic drug prescribing rates, controlling for prescriber's demographic and practice characteristics. RESULTS: In this sample, over one-third (38.0%) of Medicare Part D prescribers received industry payments in 2013. The mean annual generic drug prescribing rate was highest among prescribers receiving no payments and lowest among those receiving more than $500 of industry payments (77.5% vs. 71.3%, respectively; p < 0.001). The receipt of industry payments was independently associated with prescribers' generic drug prescribing rate; higher payments corresponded with lower generic drug prescribing rates. Other prescriber characteristics associated with higher annual generic drug prescribing rate included male sex, non-northeast region, specialty, and patient volume. CONCLUSIONS: Receipt of industry payments was associated with a decreased rate of generic drug prescribing. How this affects patient care and total medical costs warrants further study. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.