You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
Health policy
Research
A qualitative evaluation of general practitioners' perceptions regarding access to medicines in New Zealand
  1. Zaheer-Ud-Din Babar1,
  2. Piyush Grover2,
  3. Rachael Butler3,
  4. Lynne Bye1,
  5. Janie Sheridan1
  1. 1School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
  2. 2Department of Pharmacy, Waikato Hospital, Hamilton, New Zealand
  3. 3School of Population Health, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
  1. Correspondence to Dr Zaheer-Ud-Din Babar; z.babar{at}auckland.ac.nz

Abstract

Objective The objective of this study was to evaluate general practitioners' (GPs) perceptions regarding access to medicines in New Zealand.

Design Qualitative.

Setting Primary care.

Participants GPs.

Main outcome measures GPs' views and perceptions.

Results GPs were of the view that the current range of medicines available in New Zealand was reasonable; however, it was acknowledged that there were some drugs that patients were missing out on. When considering the range of subsidised medicines available in New Zealand, some GPs felt that there had been an improvement over recent years. It was highlighted that unexpected funding changes could create financial barriers for some patients and that administrative procedures and other complexities created barriers in receiving a subsidy for restricted medicines. GPs also reported problems with the availability and sole supply of certain medicines and claimed that switching from a branded medicine to its generic counterpart could be disruptive for patients.

Conclusions The research concluded that although there were some issues with the availability of certain drugs, most GPs were satisfied with the broader access to medicines situation in New Zealand. This view is to contrary to the situation presented by the pharmaceutical industry. The issues around sole supply, the use of generic medicines and the administrative barriers regarding funding of medicines could be improved with better systems. The current work provides a solid account of what GPs see as the advantages and disadvantages of the current system and how they balance these demands in practice.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000518

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • To cite: Babar Z-U-D, Grover P, Butler R, et al. A qualitative evaluation of general practitioners' perceptions regarding access to medicines in New Zealand. BMJ Open 2012;2:e000518. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000518

    • Contributors ZB was the principal investigator and designed the study with the input from JS, LB, and PG. PG undertook the data collection. PG and LB entered, checked and validated the data. The data were analysed by LB, PG, JS, ZB and RB. ZB and RB wrote the paper with significant contribution from JS. All authors participated in editing the article and approved the text for final submission.

    • Funding The Funding was received from University of Auckland and the New Zealand Pharmacy and Education and Research Foundation (NZPERF); however, funders had no role in the design, analysis, interpretation of the project nor in the writing of the article. PG was given a summer student scholarship by the University of Auckland to do initial work on the project. LB and RB worked as paid researchers from the grant received from NZPERF. ZB and JS did not receive any personal funding or benefits from the grant.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Ethics approval Ethical approval was provided by the University of Auckland Human Participants' Ethics Committee.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data sharing statement The original data are available from the principal author (ZB).