# The use of generic versus brand names in (clinical) pharmacology education across Europe: a cross-sectional survey

## TL;DR

This study explores how pharmacology teachers in Europe use generic and brand names in teaching, finding a mix of approaches influenced by national regulations and educational goals.

## Contribution

The study provides new insights into the educational practices and attitudes of pharmacology teachers regarding drug nomenclature across Europe.

## Key findings

- Most teachers use both generic and brand names in teaching, with a preference for brand names in case-based education.
- Generic prescribing is either allowed or mandatory in all but two participating countries.
- There is a divide on whether students should be exposed to brand names before graduation.

## Abstract

In pharmacology and clinical pharmacology (P&CP) teaching, using generic names of medicines contributes to global comprehensibility. However, brand names are often used in routine clinical practice, which may pose a challenge in the educational setting. This study aimed to explore P&CP teachers’ use of and attitudes towards generic and brand names in undergraduate education, as well as national prescription regulations.

A survey was conducted with P&CP teachers from 38 European countries. An electronic questionnaire was used to collect data on the participants’ profiles, the nomenclature used and preferred in undergraduate education, and prescribing practices. The latter were then verified with national regulatory authorities.

Sixty-one teachers from 23 countries participated in the study, the majority being physicians (n = 47). In total, 13 (21%) teachers use only generic names in their teaching, while 46 (75%) use both generic and brand names. Thirty-four (56%) teachers preferred listing brand names in case-based teaching, as this reflects real life. Conversely, 37 (61%) teachers stated that students should not be exposed to brand names before graduation. Generic prescribing is either allowed or mandatory in all participating countries except two, where brand-name prescribing is mandatory.

This study shows that generic names must remain fundamental in P&CP education, but brand names also play a role, especially in case-based education, reflecting real-life practice. Potential implications of generic and brand prescribing for internationalisation in education could be worth further attention.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00228-026-04005-x.