Determinants of prescribing decisions for off-patent biological medicines in Belgium: a qualitative study.
Behavior
Belgium
Biological medicine
Biosimilar
Policy
Prescription
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Sep 2022
29 Sep 2022
Historique:
received:
15
06
2022
accepted:
21
09
2022
entrez:
29
9
2022
pubmed:
30
9
2022
medline:
4
10
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
A competitive market for off-patent biologicals leads to more affordable and high-quality healthcare. In recent years, Belgium has been characterized by its low use of biosimilars and by its shifts from off-patent biologicals toward new alternative therapies. Yet, the prescribing decisions involved in these observations are poorly understood. This study aims to better understand prescribing choices among Belgian physicians in the ambulatory care setting. This study consisted of two phases. First, a scoping literature review to identify determinants of prescribing choices was conducted. Scientific databases (Embase and PubMed) were searched until 4 November 2021. Second, the nominal group technique (NGT) was employed during focus group discussions with Belgian physicians to consider and validate these determinants for off-patent biologicals in the Belgian context. The qualitative data resulting from the literature review and focus group discussions were analyzed using the thematic framework method. Fifty-three scientific articles that discussed elements that determine prescribing choices were identified. Out of these, 17 determinants of prescribing choices were found. These were divided into five categories: (1) product-related, (2) physicians' personal, (3) healthcare system-related, (4) patient-related, and (5) determinants related to the pharmaceutical company or brand. Nineteen Belgian physicians from different therapeutic areas that regularly prescribe biologicals then participated in focus group discussions. Using the NGT, the group discussions revealed that prescribing choices for off-patent biologicals are determined by a complex set of elements. Clinical data, geographical region, working environment, pharmaceutical marketing, patient profile, clinical guidelines, and preference of key opinion leaders (KOL) were considered most influential. Physicians indicated that the importance of these determinants differs depending on product classes or therapeutic domain. Multiple elements determine the choice of an off-patent biological or biosimilar product. The importance of each of these determinants varies depending on the context in which the prescribing choice is made. To increase the prescription of best-value biologicals in the Belgian ambulatory care, a set of synergistic measures is required including information for healthcare providers (HCP) and patients, prescribing feedback, prescribing targets, tangible incentives, KOL involvement, guidelines regarding pharmaceutical promotion, and regular revision of reimbursement modalities.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
A competitive market for off-patent biologicals leads to more affordable and high-quality healthcare. In recent years, Belgium has been characterized by its low use of biosimilars and by its shifts from off-patent biologicals toward new alternative therapies. Yet, the prescribing decisions involved in these observations are poorly understood. This study aims to better understand prescribing choices among Belgian physicians in the ambulatory care setting.
METHODS
METHODS
This study consisted of two phases. First, a scoping literature review to identify determinants of prescribing choices was conducted. Scientific databases (Embase and PubMed) were searched until 4 November 2021. Second, the nominal group technique (NGT) was employed during focus group discussions with Belgian physicians to consider and validate these determinants for off-patent biologicals in the Belgian context. The qualitative data resulting from the literature review and focus group discussions were analyzed using the thematic framework method.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Fifty-three scientific articles that discussed elements that determine prescribing choices were identified. Out of these, 17 determinants of prescribing choices were found. These were divided into five categories: (1) product-related, (2) physicians' personal, (3) healthcare system-related, (4) patient-related, and (5) determinants related to the pharmaceutical company or brand. Nineteen Belgian physicians from different therapeutic areas that regularly prescribe biologicals then participated in focus group discussions. Using the NGT, the group discussions revealed that prescribing choices for off-patent biologicals are determined by a complex set of elements. Clinical data, geographical region, working environment, pharmaceutical marketing, patient profile, clinical guidelines, and preference of key opinion leaders (KOL) were considered most influential. Physicians indicated that the importance of these determinants differs depending on product classes or therapeutic domain.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Multiple elements determine the choice of an off-patent biological or biosimilar product. The importance of each of these determinants varies depending on the context in which the prescribing choice is made. To increase the prescription of best-value biologicals in the Belgian ambulatory care, a set of synergistic measures is required including information for healthcare providers (HCP) and patients, prescribing feedback, prescribing targets, tangible incentives, KOL involvement, guidelines regarding pharmaceutical promotion, and regular revision of reimbursement modalities.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36175885
doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-08591-1
pii: 10.1186/s12913-022-08591-1
pmc: PMC9520107
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals
0
Nonprescription Drugs
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1211Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Pharmacoeconomics. 2014 Jul;32(7):681-91
pubmed: 24803078
Ethiop J Health Sci. 2018 Nov;28(6):795-804
pubmed: 30607097
Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79(6):685-699
pubmed: 31969328
Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Mar;75(3):499-510
pubmed: 26644232
Bull World Health Organ. 2016 Jun 1;94(6):462-7
pubmed: 27274598
Perspect Public Health. 2021 Jan;141(1):19-27
pubmed: 31633458
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Sep 18;13:117
pubmed: 24047204
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71
pubmed: 33782057
Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2022 May 17;15(5):
pubmed: 35631441
Front Pharmacol. 2022 Jul 12;13:821616
pubmed: 35903323
BioDrugs. 2020 Dec;34(6):797-808
pubmed: 33063267
BioDrugs. 2020 Apr;34(2):159-170
pubmed: 31792843
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Nov 19;18(1):143
pubmed: 30453902
PLoS Med. 2017 Oct 2;14(10):e1002397
pubmed: 28968399
J Mark Access Health Policy. 2017 Jan 30;5(1):1272308
pubmed: 28265349
Pharmacoeconomics. 2020 Dec;38(12):1289-1295
pubmed: 32895899
BioDrugs. 2022 Mar;36(2):217-229
pubmed: 35303281
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Oct 20;14:469
pubmed: 25331607
J Crohns Colitis. 2020 Jan 1;14(1):4-22
pubmed: 31711158
Acta Clin Belg. 2021 Dec;76(6):441-452
pubmed: 32400319
Front Pharmacol. 2016 Jun 29;7:193
pubmed: 27445826
Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2021 Jan;21(1):9-17
pubmed: 33206021
Diabetologia. 2018 Dec;61(12):2461-2498
pubmed: 30288571
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2013 Mar;41(3):203-12
pubmed: 23127482
Am J Prev Med. 2016 May;50(5 Suppl 1):S13-S19
pubmed: 27102853
Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2015 May;13(5):665-80
pubmed: 25813839
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2015 Sep;42(5):533-44
pubmed: 24193818
Lancet Infect Dis. 2010 Mar;10(3):167-75
pubmed: 20185095
Fam Pract. 2000 Feb;17 Suppl 1:S26-31
pubmed: 10735265
Front Pharmacol. 2021 Apr 19;12:644187
pubmed: 33953678
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Dec 23;16(1):
pubmed: 30583571
Int J Clin Pharm. 2016 Jun;38(3):655-62
pubmed: 26846316