Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Big Pharma, drugs, healthcare, Patients, pew priscriptions project, pharmaceutical rep, physicians, relationships, transparency, trust, washington post
Trust has been a big topic on this blog of late and for good reason. The pharmaceutical community has a growing divide between physicians and drug companies and unless it’s addressed, a cataclysmic event could be on the horizon. But according to a report in the Washington Post, there is an even bigger trust issue growing between patients and physicians.
The Post reported that 68 percent of respondents to a Pew Prescription Project survey supported legislation that would require public disclosure of financial relationships between physicians and industry. In fact, 78 percent believed that accepting gifts from the pharmaceutical industry influences their doctors’ prescribing habits, but only 34 percent said they would be likely to ask their doctors about potentially troubling financial ties.
So what’s the solution? Transparency? Conversation? Regulation? Find out what the Washington Post recommends here.
Filed under: advertising, pharmaceutical marketing | Tags: Big Pharma, brands, drugs, FDA, healthcare, patient education, physicians, products, relationship, safety, trust
What needs to be done? Start here.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: AMWA, clinical study, communications, content, data, drugs, EMWA, FDA, ghost writing, guidelines, healthcare, ICMJE, medical journals, pharma, pharmaceutical, physicians, WAME
The debate over who should write medical journal articles has been raging for years. Although heated and passionate at times, these debates are often imprecise about what constitutes ghostwriting or what possible benefit there is in employing a professional medical writer. Let’s clear up some half-truths and misconceptions.
He’s not a ghost if you can see him.
There are definitely ghostwriters among us. At its most extreme, ghostwriting is the use of an invisible writer hired by the marketing department of a pharmaceutical company to produce a selectively favorable report of their product, with authorship attributed to a high-profile investigator whose sole participation is cashing their honorarium check. This extreme example is shunned by most who are responsible for producing medical communications. More often than not, journal articles are written by medical writers who adhere to rigorous ethical guidelines (EMWA, ICMJE, WAME, AMWA). Central to appropriate medical writing is close collaboration of the professional writer with faculty authors who direct and control content.
Who are you going to call?
Another crucial aspect of professional medical writing is transparency. Successful medical publications are a team effort. Just as physicians investigate, statisticians calculate, and peer reviewers authenticate, the job of the medical writer is to communicate. Skilled medical writers perform the time-intensive tasks involved in clarifying and translating data into a submission-ready manuscript. Full disclosure of the contributions of all members of the team is essential to restore trust in medical literature.
Is it time to give up the ghost?
Investigators cite limited time as the most common reason why they do not convert clinical trial data into publishable manuscripts. A 2005 study of publication rates of oncology clinical trial data found that up to one third of clinical research in oncology remains unpublished. A recent survey for the Food and Drug Administration found that encouraging the participation of medical writers would help reduce the non-publication rate associated with industry-sponsored clinical trials.
And now a word from our sponsor…
Much of our medical literature is funded directly or indirectly by the pharmaceutical industry. We need them and they need us. At our best, the collaboration results in significant advances in healthcare. A final step toward eliminating hidden biases and restoring trust in medical literature is full disclosure of industry support and open access to clinical study data.
Carol Gorman
Filed under: representative | Tags: Big Pharma, drugs, pharma, pharmaceutical, physician, relationship, representative, sales force
By David Recht, CEO, North State Resources
Following my first writing regarding the need for our pharmaceutical industry to earn back the physician’s trust, I read a couple of articles that I thought gave further credence to the trust issue I first described.
A recent survey published by SK&A Healthcare Information Solutions, the headline was Physicians Continue to Limit Sales Rep Access. The survey found that the percentage of physicians requiring appointments for sales reps increased (31.4% → 38.5%) while at the same time the number of physicians who will not see sales-reps also rose (22.3% → 23.6%). Additionally, the busier the practice, the harder it will be to see a physician.
A new PricewaterhouseCoopers Report indicated that smaller, refocused sales forces will enable pharmaceutical companies to create greater value for patients. The report goes on to state that “pharmaceutical companies will need to package products and health services in a way that adds value, demonstrating that their medicines really work, that they provide value for the money and potentially reduce healthcare costs by being better than alternative forms of intervention.”
Do you think that there is any correlation between the SK&A report and the PricewaterhouseCoopers Report? Isn’t it sort of a no-brainer that life would be simple and grand for our industry if companies provided better value, reduced healthcare costs, and are were better than alternative forms of treatment?
What is left out of the equation is that in order to demonstrate these marvelous benefits to a physician it means that the physician must first understand and believe what the pharmaceutical marketing efforts and sales reps are saying. They must believe that the data, studies and information provided are factual and transparent, and have clinical application. It means that there must be a relationship between the industry and its physician audience and that the relationship is built on the usual things any good relationship is built upon–trust, communication, and respect.
That is the problem as I described in my first writing. Right now there is not a great deal of trust, respect and good communication between the two “partners”. So, how does one go about building that good relationship if things are to move forward in a way that is beneficial to all – patient, healthcare provider and pharma industry?
First is trust. Think about any relationship: Be it business or personal, trust is a must if is to be a successful relationship. What are the hallmark features of trust? It always includes the truth – no one earns trust via deception, lies, or misinformation. Once an individual even senses that the truth has been breached it will take a long time to recover on the trust scale.
Second in the relationship equation is good communication. Again think about that good relationship you may have with a businessperson or a family member. It’s not just the frequency and tone of the communication, it is also about clarity and transparency of the communication provided. And it does not matter if that communication is written or spoken. It is essential that we communicate with our potential partners in a way that fosters good understanding, clear objectives and clear direction. Only in this way can we add to the trust component and reassure the customer, partner, spouse that our intentions are to provide meaningful help that will benefit them.
The last component is respect. Respect goes hand-in-hand with trust and good communication. We EARN respect by accomplishing the first two components. Respect means that we provide our views and thoughts as well as take into consideration the views and thoughts of our business partners, family, or friends. If you are well respected by these people then you have likely achieved created a good and productive relationship.
So for all of us in the pharmaceutical industry, it is time to get back to basics – build good, sound relationships with out physician partners. Build the trust by providing clear facts and information–even if it means that such data demonstrates that a product will not manage every patient with a given indication.
Communicate intelligently, clearly and transparently with each and every physician–be it via sales rep, marketing campaign or education program. Use language, data, and style that are consistent with the audience you are trying to reach–an educated and intelligent customer.
Finally, earn back the respect that this industry once had with its physicians. Let them know that we can be counted on to do what we say we will do, be there in the good times and tough times, and provide them with solutions that will ultimately help their patients reach the therapeutic goals that have been set for them.
Filed under: behavior | Tags: adoption, behavior, brands, contagion, drugs, products
For new pharmaceutical products, the impact of marketing communication on creating awareness and adoption by physicians has been well documented. Similarly, the importance of word-of-mouth interaction has been well recognized in consumer adoption behavior. However, what effect does peer influence, such as the adoption and usage of a new drug by 1 physician, have on other physicians in a close geographic
area?
In a recent study, researchers from the business schools at the University of Chicago, the University of Washington, and Rutgers University studied this question during the launch of a new drug in New York City (Manhattan) and Indianapolis. They created a “contagion” model that measured the adoption behavior of physicians located near each other for each physician in the target audience. While their research confirmed the importance of marketing communication, particularly early on in the launch, it also demonstrated that “contagion” (their surrogate for “word-of-mouth”) had a pronounced impact within 4 months of the launch.
