Table 2.
Clinician Willingness to Discuss Generics
| Overall | Physicians | NPs | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Generic skeptica | OR 0.22, 95% CI (0.14–0.35), p < 0.001 | OR 0.24, 95% CI (0.12–0.48), p < 0.001 | OR 0.20, 95% CI (0.11–0.36), p < 0.001 | |
| Infrequent OCP prescribersb | OR 0.49, 95% CI (0.36–0.67), p < 0.001 | OR 0.56, 95% CI (0.36–0.88), p = 0.01 | OR 0.42, 95% CI (0.28–0.65), p < 0.001 | |
| Infrequent AD prescribersc | OR 0.74, 95% CI (0.49–1.12), p = 0.16 | OR 1.05, 95% CI (0.44–2.50), p = 0.92 | OR 0.67, 95% CI (0.42–1.08), p = 0.10 | |
| Infrequent OCP * skepticd | OR 1.95, 95% CI (1.06–3.61), p = 0.03 | OR 2.12, 95% CI (0.75–6.03), p = 0.16 | OR 1.82, 95% CI (0.87–3.83), p = 0.11 | |
| Infrequent AD * skeptice | OR 0.75, 95% CI (0.36–1.56), p = 0.44 | OR 0.13, 95% CI (0.02–0.76), p = 0.02 | OR 1.21, 95% CI (0.55–2.68), p = 0.63 | |
| Patient brand preferencef | OR 1.12, 95% CI (0.87–1.45), p = 0.37 | OR 0.98, 95% CI (0.67–1.42), p = 0.92 | OR 1.29, 95% CI (0.91–1.83), p = 0.15 | |
| Prescribe ADg | OR 1.51, 95% CI (1.29–1.77), p < 0.001 | OR 1.84, 95% CI (1.46–2.31), p < 0.001 | OR 1.27, 95% CI (1.02–1.60), p = 0.04 | |
| State mandateh | OR 0.92, 95% CI (0.70–1.19), p = 0.52 | OR 1.05, 95% CI (0.72–1.53), p = 0.79 | OR 0.74, 95% CI (0.51–1.07), p = 0.11 | |
| NPsi | OR 1.01, 95% CI (0.74–1.38), p = 0.97 | - | ||
| Message sourcej | OR 0.93, 95% CI (0.72–1.19), p = 0.55 | OR 0.84, 95% CI (0.58–1.21), p = 0.35 | OR 1.01, 95% CI (0.71–1.42), p = 0.97 | |
| Message typek | OR 1.01, 95% CI (0.91–1.11), p = 0.90 | OR 0.91, 95% CI (0.80–1.05), p = 0.20 | OR 1.10, 95% CI (0.95–1.28), p = 0.19 | |
| Femalel | OR 1.08, 95% CI (0.79–1.48), p = 0.63 | OR 1.27, 95% CI (0.84–1.94), p = 0.26 | OR 0.87, 95% CI (0.49–1.53), p = 0.62 | |
| Age | < 35 | OR 0.68, 95% CI (0.41–1.14), p = 0.14 | OR 0.73, 95% CI (0.32–1.69), p = 0.46 | OR 0.66, 95% CI (0.35–1.26), p = 0.21 |
| 35–44 | - | - | - | |
| 45–64 | OR 0.86, 95% CI (0.58–1.28), p = 0.47 | OR 0.90, 95% CI (0.50–1.63), p = 0.74 | OR 0.83, 95% CI (0.48–1.42), p = 0.50 | |
| 55–64 | OR 0.73, 95% CI (0.50–1.07), p = 0.11 | OR 0.74, 95% CI (0.44–1.27), p = 0.28 | OR 0.72, 95% CI (0.42–1.22), p = 0.22 | |
| 65+ | OR 0.98, 95% CI (0.52–1.85), p = 0.95 | OR 1.27, 95% CI (0.53–3.06), p = 0.59 | OR 0.64, 95% CI (0.26–1.56), p = 0.33 | |
| Unknown | OR 0.82, 95% CI (0.47–1.42), p = 0.47 | OR 0.84, 95% CI (0.42–1.67), p = 0.62 | OR 0.75, 95% CI (0.26–2.15), p = 0.60 | |
This table represents the results of an ordinal logistic regression that examines the association between covariates below and willingness to discuss generic drugs represented as a 3-level outcome: (1) unlikely, (2) neutral, (3) likely. Additional models are stratified by physicians only or nurse practitioners only
OCP, oral contraceptive; AD, antidepressant; NP, nurse practitioner
aGeneric skeptics are compared with non-skeptics
bInfrequent OCP prescribers compared with frequent OCP prescribers
cInfrequent AD prescribers compared with frequent AD prescribers
dInfrequent OCP prescriber by skeptic interaction
eInfrequent AD prescribers by skeptic interaction
fPatient with brand preference compared with those who are brand-neutral
gPrescribing ADs to OCPs
hState mandate compared with no state mandate
iNPs compared with physicians
jProfessional society compared with FDA
kEffective compared with bioequivalent
lFemale compared with male/unknown