1<!DOCTYPE html>
2
3Anonymous
4/bestp
5/bestp/domrep.nsf
6567783A0E36A12978525823B005B7308
8
9
10
11
12
13
140
15
16
17/bestp/domrep.nsf/products/best-practices-improving-medical-affairs-booth-impact-critical-medical-congresses
18
19
2054.161.31.247
21
22
23www.best-in-class.com
24/bestp/domrep.nsf
25BMR




Products & Services Medical Affairs Medical Communication

Best Practices in Improving Medical Affairs Booth Impact at Critical Medical Congresses

ID: POP-292


Features:

33 Info Graphics

40 Data Graphics

1400+ Metrics

19 Narratives

31 Best Practices


Pages: 86


Published: 2018


Delivery Format: Shipped


 

License Options:
close

Single User: Authorizes use by the person who places the order or for whom the order was placed.

Sitewide: Authorizes use of the report for a geographic site. All people at site can view the report for a year and copies can be printed.

Corporate: Authorizes use for the entire company for a year and copies can be printed. No limitations for usage inside the company.




Buy Now

 

919-403-0251

  • STUDY OVERVIEW
  • BENCHMARK CLASS
  • STUDY SNAPSHOT
  • KEY FINDINGS
  • VIEW TOC AND LIST OF EXHIBITS
Pharmaceutical companies spend a lot of money and resources on the medical booth exhibits that showcase their pipeline and products at key medical conferences or congresses. However, the medical communications staff that prepare and manage these booth exhibits are grappling with how to best utilize technology to produce compelling and interactive medical information displays.


Even more challenging for those who plan and oversee medical conference exhibits is balancing internal compliance requirements with current exhibit booth practices at important scientific congresses and conferences.

Best Practices, LLC conducted this benchmarking study to provide biopharma companies with insights into the current practices at medical affairs booths. In particular, this study explores what medical content companies are displaying in medical exhibit booths, how they are sharing the information (proactive vs. reactive), and how they are displaying it to HCPs attending congresses. The extensive research also looks at performance measurement, poster/investigator events and what materials MSLs are utilizing in the field.

Note: Data in this research are presented into two segments: Hematology/Oncology vs. Non-Hematology/Oncology and Size (Large vs. Small Companies).


Industries Profiled:
Biotech; Pharmaceutical; Manufacturing; Chemical; Health Care; Biopharmaceutical; Clinical Research; Laboratories


Companies Profiled:
Allergan; amag; Amgen; AstraZeneca; Biogen; Boehringer Ingelheim; Celgene; Exelixis ; Ferring Pharmaceuticals; LifeScan; Indivior; Merck; Genentech; Novartis; Pfizer; Sanofi; Sunovion; TG Therapeutics; Tillotts Pharma; Takeda Pharmaceuticals


Study Snapshot

Best Practices, LLC engaged 21 Medical Affairs leaders at 20 pharmaceutical companies for this research project. In addition to utilizing a survey to collect quantitative data, the study included four executive interviews to collect qualitative data.

Key topics covered in this report include:
  • Medical Affairs Booth Content
  • Display Methods for Medical Booth Content
  • Approaches to US and EU Content
  • Measuring Medical Booth Success
  • Poster/Investigator Events at Congresses
  • Medical Content Utilized by MSLs in the Field

Key Findings

  • Content that a Majority of Both Segments do not have Available at Medical Booths: IIT General Mission, Company-Sponsored Abstracts from Past Congress, Company-Sponsored CME Event Information, IIT TA Objectives, and Booklet of Relevant Abstracts.
  • Only a Third of Both Segments Host Poster/Investigator Receptions: While not utilized by most participants, poster/investigator receptions that are hosted by companies in the study typically focus on products pre-approval and on poster/oral presentations at the current congress. The HemOnc Segment is more restrictive than other TAs about who attends: 75% said they require an invitation. Meanwhile, only 33% of the Non-HemOnc Segment require an invitation and 67% allow anyone to attend.
Table of Contents


Executive Summary pgs. 4-11
Research Overviewpg. 4
Participating Companies pg. 5
Segmentation & Definitionpg. 6
Key Findingspg. 7-11
Participant Demographicspgs. 12-16
Medical Affairs Booth Content Availability and Displaypgs. 17-31
Medical Affairs Booth Practices, Performance Measurement and Pitfallspgs. 32-43
Poster/Investigator Events and Attendeespgs. 44-50
Innovative MSL Materials and Eventspgs. 51-65
Interview Narratives pgs. 66-77
Appendixpgs. 78-85

    List of Charts & Exhibits

    • What type of content is available at your medical booth at congresses, how is it shared (proactive vs. reactive), and how is it displayed?
    • What are the most important factors affecting your company's decision on which types of content to display?
    • Are you permitted to send posters or other content to attendees by e-mail?
    • Do you utilize any interactive educational games at your medical information/medical affairs booths?
    • Do you have different content for US and EU information at your medical booth at international conferences?
    • Indicate the effectiveness of these metrics for measuring the value of your medical affairs booth content
    • What is an effective metric to use to measure the effectiveness of your company's booth presence?
    • What are the top three best practices for medical information/affairs booth content and display?
    • Does your company host poster/investigator receptions at congresses? What content do you utilize?
    • What restrictions, if any, do you have on who attends poster/investigator receptions at congresses?
    • What materials does your MSL team use in the field and is it shared proactively or reactively?
    • If your MSLs utilize poster books in the field, how long can they present them for, share reactively or proactively and with a video/audio of the author?
    • Do your MSLs host receptions at medical congresses and who can attend?