bcomplete healthvizion, mccann health medical ... · objective: social media (sm) use by health...

SOCIAL MEDIA: HOW ARE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES USING IT?

Tamalette Loh,a Beatrice Vetter-Ceriotti,b Mary Gaskarth,c Jackie Marchington,d and Lynda Changb

aComplete HealthVizion, McCann Health Medical Communications, Chicago, IL, USA bComplete HealthVizion, McCann Health Medical Communications, Glasgow, UK cCMC Af�nity, McCann Health Medical Communications, Maccles�eld, UK dCaudex, McCann Health Medical Communications, Oxford, UK

VIRTUAL 16TH ANNUAL ISMPP MEETING

46

The strengths of social media arenot known or acknowledgedby our participants

A lack of industry-wide compliance guidelines is a major concern

Social media is mostly used for promoting company culture…

Many publication professionals are uncomfortable with using social media

All pharmaceutical companies have formal social media policies…

…but they may not be publically available

…across diverse therapy areas

Our participants weremainly in publications…

VIEW ABSTRACT

Few of our publications professionals monitor social media

...and content does not come from our participants

CALL TOACTION





46





All pharmaceutical companies have formal social media policies…

…but they may not be publically available



VIEW ABSTRACT


...and content does not come from our participants

CALL TOACTION

Objective: Social media (SM) use by health care professionals, medical publishers, and communications professionals is increasing. However, there is limited guidance from regulatory bodies about the appropriate use of these communications platforms by publications professionals. Our objective was to explore how pharmaceutical company publications and medical affairs divisions currently use SM.

Research design and methods: A 17-item questionnaire was created using an online survey platform and circulated via ISMPP’s LinkedIn group page and direct e-mails to pharmaceutical professionals. Responses were collected from November to December 2019.

Results: 24 participants completed the survey; 66.7% worked in publications, 25.0% in medical affairs, and 8.3% in both. Participants’ therapeutic areas included oncology (37.5%), pulmonology (25.0%), and neurology (20.8%). All participants’ companies have a formal SM output policy, with 83.3% requiring a formal review process; 75% of participants’ companies have a dedicated SM team. Only 16.7% use medical communications agencies to support SM activities. The most commonly used SM platforms were networking sites (87.5%), Twitter (79.2%), YouTube (37.5%), and Instagram (29.2%); main uses were promoting company culture (79.2%), communicating product approvals (70.1%), releasing data (50.0%), and sharing publications and congress information (both 25.0%). Three participants reported caution with SM use due to lack of compliance guidelines. A limitation of this analysis was the small sample size.

Conclusions: Within our sample, we found that SM use by pharmaceutical companies was more for general company announcements and product approvals than to share information on individual publications. SM use may increase and become a more effective communications tool for publications if speci�c industry recommendations are developed and adopted.

ABSTRACT





46





All pharma companies have formal social media policies…

…But they may not be publically available



VIEW ABSTRACT


And content does not come from our participants…

CALL TO ACTIONSpeci�c industry-wide recommendations and guidelines need to be developed and adopted to allow social media use to increaseand become a more effective communications tool for publications

Post hoc observation: In light of the current COVID-19 pandemic,the unmet need of industry guidelines becomes more pressing, such thatnovel initiatives and new ways to adapt the use of social media to disseminate information and data can be realized in a regulated manner

CALL TOACTION





46

WHY?Social media has an ever-increasing in�uence on our everyday lives, but with limited regulatory guidance about how these platforms should be used by publication professionals and concerns about inappropriate promotion and generation of misinformation, we wanted to explore how pharmaceutical publications and medical affairs teams currently use social media channels

Please state which area of the business you work in

Which therapeutic area do you work in?

Does your company have a formal policy for social media outputs?

If so, is it available publically on the company website?

Do company social media outputs need to go through compliance/regulatory/formal approval?

Does your company have a dedicated social media team?

Do you actively monitor social media for peer-reviewed publications about your products?

Do you use medical communications agencies to support your social media activities?

Does your company have a policy that guides the personal use of social media by employees and contingent workers?

SURVEY

What platforms for social media output does your company use (choose all that apply)?

What does your company use social media for (choose all that apply)?

Overall, how important do you feel social media is to your company?

Does social media help you to get a better understanding of your product’s audience?

What happens if a social media conversation starts discussing off-label use, adverse events, or opinions of a product (positive or negative)?

What insights do you get from social media on your audience?

What do you like/not like about social media?

Do you have any additional insights you would like to provide?

THERAPY AREA EXPERTISE

Respondents could indicate >1 therapy area

WHO?

66.7%

WORKED IN PUBLICATIONS

25.0%

WORKED IN MEDICAL AFFAIRS

8.3%

WORKEDIN BOTH

24 respondents

WHAT WE DIDA 17-item questionnaire was generated (in Survey Monkey) to uncover the demographics and professional social media practices of respondents

The survey was circulated direct to pharmaceutical professional clients via email and shared on ISMPP’s LinkedIn page

Responses were collected during November and December 2019

ONCOLOGY 9RESPIRATORY 8NEUROLOGY 4INFECTIOUS DISEASES 3CARDIOLOGY 2

GASTROENTEROLOGY 2

ENDOCRINOLOGY 2

DERMATOLOGY 1IMMUNOLOGY 1NO SPECIFIC FOCUS 1





46

TRANSPARENCY

62.5%

OF RESPONDENTS DIDN’T KNOW WHETHER THEIR COMPANY POLICY WAS PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE

16.7%

KNEW IT WAS

20.8%

KNEW IT WASN’T

RESPONDENTS’ COMPANIES ALSO HAVE POLICIES GUIDING

PERSONAL USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA (1 DIDN’T KNOW)

POLICIES

23 PROACTIVE PUBLICATIONS

PUBLICATION SPECIALISTS MONITOR SOCIAL MEDIA

FOR PUBLICATION ACTIVITY, 10 DON’T MONITOR, AND 2 DON’T KNOW

MEDICAL AFFAIRS SPECIALIST MONITORS FOR

PUBLICATION ACTIVITY

OF THE 2 RESPONDENTS WITH COMBINED

RESPONSIBILITIES, ONLY 1 MONITORS FOR

PUBLICATION ACTIVITY

4/16 1/6





46

WHAT DOES YOUR COMPANY USE SOCIAL MEDIA FOR?

WHAT DO YOU LIKE/NOT LIKEABOUT SOCIAL MEDIA?

LIKE NOT LIKE

?

1

2

3

PRODUCT APPROVALS/

LAUNCH

DATA RELEASEINFORMATION

COMPANYCULTURE

OTHERLINKEDIN; JOB OPENINGSPUBLIC POLICY, ADVOCACYTALENT ACQUISITION

PUBLICATIONS

CONGRESS INFORMATION/SYMPOSIA

Participant's could choose all that apply

DOES YOUR COMPANY HAVE A DEDICATED SOCIAL MEDIA TEAM?

18 YES 1 NO 5 DON’T KNOW

DO NOT KNOW

Quick, concise feedback

It’s fast, it’s personal If the patients are highly

activated, it can be agreat resource

Discussions on MedTwitter or

BioTwitter among clinicians and scientist and patient advocates

is one thing

Love that is real time, and can be tailored

to meet a broad demographic of folks

If patients are notengaged, insights are not as easy to interpret

The algorithms make success dif�cult to

anticipate

It is hard to controlsometimes what

information is beingmade available to

general public

Information maybe false and havea negative impact. Engagement can be

impacted by bias rather than facts or statistics

No peer review, so any opinion can be expressed (even though

not based on fact)

Dif�cult to get meaningful metrics

from itRisks attached whenunsure how to use it

Trolling, blatherand noise; often very super�cial





46

THE STRENGTHS OF SOCIAL MEDIA DO NOT OUTWEIGH THE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES, IN THE OPINION OF OUR PARTICIPANTS

Our company has a pretty strict policy of not using social media for business-related issues

Social media is a double-edged sword. It can be useful, but it can also be misguided (if information is false)

A LACK OF INDUSTRY-WIDECOMPLIANCE GUIDELINESIS A MAJOR CONCERN

~83% OF PARTICIPANTS REPORTTHAT THEIR COMPANY SOCIAL MEDIA OUTPUTS NEED TO GO THROUGH COMPLIANCE/ REGULATORY/FORMAL APPROVAL

[There are] formal policies forbidding us from being involved in product discussions. If we see

discussions as described, we send that information to a speci�c

corporate team

We cannot participate in social media around our products. Other investigators on our behalf can and

have, on occasion

I'd be more convinced of social media if [there was] a compliant and objective way for company to manage content.

Otherwise not sure how to use

Social media is a double-edged sword. It can be useful, but it can also be misguided (if information is false)

Those that look at social media should be aware of bias and take information from legitimate sources rather any Harry or Jane that has

an opinion and a computer

One has to be very careful using social media platforms. There are too many

seeing these only as a great thing

SOCIAL MEDIA CONVERSATIONS DISCUSSING OFF-LABEL USE, ADVERSE EVENTS, OR OPINIONSOF A PRODUCT ARE NOT ENCOURAGED AND NEEDTO BE REPORTED IF OBSERVED

We are required to report it ifAEs [are mentioned]

Screening and directing topharmacovigilance is advised

bcomplete healthvizion, mccann health medical ... · objective: social media (sm) use by health...

Documents