1 Institute of General Medical Practice, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aarhus University, Aarhus University2 Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aarhus University, Aarhus University3 Department of Clinical Medicine - Department of Paediatrics, Department of Clinical Medicine, Health, Aarhus University4 unknown5 Det Nationale Indikatorprojekt6 Department of Public Health - Institute of General Medical Practice, Department of Public Health, Health, Aarhus University7 Department of Clinical Medicine - Department of Paediatrics, Department of Clinical Medicine, Health, Aarhus University8 Department of Public Health - Institute of General Medical Practice, Department of Public Health, Health, Aarhus University
Aim/Objectives: Evaluation of how the substitution system has been implemented, how it was assessed by the general practitioners (GPs), pharmacists (PHs) and patients, and clarification of benefits and problems related to the system. Methods: The study was based on specific question-naires to GPs, PHs and patients. The questionnaires were based on qualitative interviews with all three groups and afterwards validated and pilot tested. Results: 80% of 300 GPs, 72% of PHs and 82% of 105 patients responded. The study showed that 84% of the patients were satisfied with the system. Of the patients, 83% had tried a substituted drug previously. Of these, 4% had experienced various side effects, and 7% had experienced a weaker effect from the substi tuted drug. One case of adverse medical treatment as a consequence of substitution was reported. The study showed that 61% of GPs were dissatisfied with the system and assessed that it should be abolished. Conclusions: The GPs' reasons for suggesting that the system be abolished were that the system was incomprehensible, badly introduced and created an extra workload. Half of the PHs were dissatisfied with the system, primarily due to the excessive workload imposed. In spite of this, about half of the PHs wanted the system to be continued, because the overall intention was good, in terms of getting the prescribed drug as cheaply as possible for the patient. Nearly all statements from the patients showed that overall the patients thought the benefits greater than the disadvantages in the system. All GPs and nearly all PHs were of the opinion that analogue substitution (substitution between drugs with the same effect obtained by different means) was medically unjustifiable, did not have potentially desirable effects, and should therefore not be introduced. How do general practitioners, pharmacists and patients evaluate the substitution system for prescription in Denmark?. Available from: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/243131968_How_do_general_practitioners_pharmacists_and_patients_evaluate_the_substitution_system_for_prescription_in_Denmark [accessed Oct 2, 2015].
European Journal of General Practice, 2002, Vol 8, Issue 1, p. 13-17
drugs; substitution; pharmacists; general practitioners; patients; questionnaire