1<!DOCTYPE html>
2
3Anonymous
4/bestp
5/bestp/domrep.nsf
641B65AF341D1F0CF852584BD006A98D0
8
9
10
11
12
13
140
15
16
17/bestp/domrep.nsf/products/db-patient-advocacy-2020-structure-effectiveness-relationship-management-outside-the-united-states?opendocument
18
19opendocument
2018.206.194.161
21
22
23www.best-in-class.com
24/bestp/domrep.nsf
25DB




Products & Services Medical Affairs Patient Advocacy

Patient Advocacy 2020: Structure, Effectiveness and Relationship Management Outside the United States

ID: 5588


Features:

8 Info Graphics

20 Data Graphics

200 Metrics

3 Narratives


Pages/Slides: 37


Published: 2019


Delivery Format: Online PDF Document


 

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

 


  • STUDY OVERVIEW
  • BENCHMARK CLASS
  • SPECIAL OFFER
Non-members: Click here to review a complimentary excerpt from "Patient Advocacy 2020: Structure, Effectiveness and Relationship Management Outside the United States"

STUDY OVERVIEW

Pharmaceutical organizations are increasingly relying on their relationships with patient advocacy groups to educate and inform patients about new therapies and treatment options. During the same period that advocacy groups have risen in importance, pharma has been shifting its structural approach to maximize the efficiency of its interactions with external patient groups.

Best Practices, LLC conducted this benchmarking research to examine the ideal structures and staffing for pharma organizations that deal with advocacy groups outside the United States. This study also reviews effectiveness measures and relationship management for patient advocacy groups.

This study has been segmented so that all respondents represent groups that operate outside of the United States.

KEY TOPICS

  • Understanding the advocacy landscape
  • Patient Advocacy Functional Structure
  • Patient Advocacy Partner Coordination & Effectiveness
  • Developing & Optimizing Patient Advocacy Partnerships
  • Managing Relationships Within Controversial Disease States

KEY METRICS

  • How would you describe the structure of your company’s patient advocacy function?
  • Do you feel the current structure of your patient advocacy function is appropriate for your organization?
  • How does your company ensure that patient advocacy organizations may properly contact or communicate with your patient advocacy functional personnel?
  • Please estimate the number of FTEs within your organization dedicated to patient advocacy activities
  • How many years of experience do you have working on patient advocacy objectives?
  • How many patient advocacy groups do you support or plan to support in the coming year?
  • Which metrics are effective for measuring the success of your patient advocacy activities and relationships?
  • Which methods are most effective for prioritizing objectives when a patient advocacy group maintains relationships with multiple brands or therapeutic areas?
  • Which lifecycle stage is most important for patient advocacy collaborations?
  • What education, program support, and grants/sponsorships are most important during each of four key lifecycle stages?
  • What approaches are most effective in educating the market on conditions that may be highly controversial or have a social stigma?
  • What current factors in the marketplace do you feel should receive the greatest consideration with respect to patient advocacy issues?
SAMPLE KEY FINDINGS
  • Steady rise in the number of advocacy groups supported by companies: Participating companies predict an increase in the number of external advocacy groups that their organization supports. Currently companies support an average of 19 advocacy groups. In the next two years, participants estimated they will support, on average, 23 patient advocacy groups. Meanwhile, companies have about 7 FTE in their patient advocacy groups, on average. These employees have 7 years of advocacy experience, on average.

METHODOLOGY

This study engaged 26 leaders supporting patient advocacy at 23 life sciences companies and organizations. All the respondents represent groups that operate outside of the United States.


Industries Profiled:
Pharmaceutical; Manufacturing; Biotech; Consumer Products; Diagnostic; Medical Device; Research; Clinical Research; Health Care; Communications; Medical; Biopharmaceutical; Laboratories


Companies Profiled:
AbbVie; Astellas; Bayer; BioMarin; Bluebird Bio; Covance; Bionical Emas; Lundbeck; Janssen; Merck; Merck Serono; NexGen Healthcare Communications; Novartis; Parkway Pantai; Sanofi; Servier; Shire; Spark Therapeutics; Takeda Pharmaceuticals; UCB Pharma; Tillotts Pharma; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd

If you purchase Best Practice Database document(s), you will have 30 days from the date of purchase to apply some or all of the cost of the document(s) toward the cost of a Full Access Individual, Pharma, Group or University Membership. Write us at DatabaseTeam@bestpracticesllc.com or call David Guinn at 919-767-9179 if you have any questions.