Hassali Mohamed Azmi, Kong David C M, Stewart Kay
Discipline of Social and Administrative Pharmacy, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia.
Med Educ. 2007 Jul;41(7):703-10. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02791.x.
To ascertain any differences in knowledge and perceptions of generic medicines between senior (final year) medical students and pharmacy pre-registrants in Australia.
National web-based surveys containing 16 common questions were administered to each group. Responses were compared using Mann-Whitney U-test.
Responses were received from 400 medical students (response rate 26.7%) and 289 pharmacy pre-registrants (response rate 30.5%). Both groups scored poorly on the allowable bioequivalence limits when comparing a brand-name medicine with a generic medicine, with pharmacy pre-registrants scoring better (P < 0.001). Pharmacy pre-registrants were more likely (P < 0.001) to report having been introduced to bioequivalence during their courses, and less likely (P < 0.001) to desire more information on bioequivalence testing. Both groups correctly agreed that generic medicines are bioequivalent to corresponding brand-name medicines but not necessarily to each other, and that generic medicines are cheaper. Pharmacy pre-registrants were more aware that generic medicines must be in the same dosage form (P < 0.001) and contain the same dose (P < 0.001) as the comparator brand-name medicine. Both groups incorrectly believed that generic medicines are required to meet higher safety standards, are inferior in quality, are less effective and produce more side-effects. Both groups agreed that it is easier to recognise a drug's therapeutic class from its generic name and that they needed more information about the safety and efficacy of generic medicines, with medical students feeling more strongly about this (P < 0.001).
Although there were some differences in responses, both groups had knowledge deficits about the quality, safety and effectiveness of generic medicines, which need to be addressed by educators in order to increase the future use of generic medicines in Australia.
确定澳大利亚高年级（最后一年）医学生与药学预注册人员在仿制药知识和认知方面是否存在差异。
对每组进行包含16个常见问题的全国性网络调查。使用曼-惠特尼U检验比较回答情况。
收到了400名医学生的回复（回复率26.7%）和289名药学预注册人员的回复（回复率30.5%）。在比较品牌药和仿制药时，两组在允许的生物等效性限度方面得分都很低，药学预注册人员得分更高（P<0.001）。药学预注册人员更有可能（P<0.001）报告在课程中学习过生物等效性，而不太可能（P<0.001）希望获得更多关于生物等效性测试的信息。两组都正确地认为仿制药与相应的品牌药具有生物等效性，但彼此之间不一定等效，并且仿制药更便宜。药学预注册人员更清楚仿制药必须与对照品牌药具有相同的剂型（P<0.001）和相同的剂量（P<0.001）。两组都错误地认为仿制药需要符合更高的安全标准，质量较差，效果较差且副作用更多。两组都认为从通用名更容易识别药物的治疗类别，并且他们需要更多关于仿制药安全性和有效性的信息，医学生对此感受更强烈（P<0.001）。
尽管在回答上存在一些差异，但两组在仿制药的质量、安全性和有效性方面都存在知识缺陷，教育工作者需要解决这些问题，以增加澳大利亚未来仿制药的使用。
