1<!DOCTYPE html>
2
3Anonymous
4/bestp
5/bestp/domrep.nsf
6207BCE478D0416340025876800223607
8
9
10
11
12
13
140
15
16
17/bestp/domrep.nsf/products/how-pharma-is-utilizing-social-media-patient-groups-virtual-formats-delivering-medical-education?opendocument
18
19opendocument
203.237.16.210
21
22
23www.best-in-class.com
24/bestp/domrep.nsf
25BMR




» Products & Services » » Medical Affairs » Medical Education

How Pharma is Utilizing Social Media, Patient Groups and Virtual Formats for Delivering Medical Education

ID: POP-343


Features:

31 Info Graphics

35 Data Graphics

370+ Metrics

28 Narratives


Pages: 76


Published: 2021


Delivery Format: Shipped


 

License Options:


Buy Now

 

919-403-0251

  • STUDY OVERVIEW
  • BENCHMARK CLASS
  • STUDY SNAPSHOT
  • KEY FINDINGS
  • VIEW TOC AND LIST OF EXHIBITS
Most pharma companies have seamlessly pivoted to virtual meetings and adopted various multichannel approaches for delivering medical education post the pandemic. While live meetings were the norm in the past, the success of virtual formats has caused pharma to adjust how it approaches medical education.

Best Practices, LLC undertook benchmarking research to highlight the most critical current trends and future directions of medical education. The report provides benchmarks around the use and effectiveness of social media platforms and virtual formats for delivering medical education, support for patient medical education activities, and management of medical sponsorships/corporate memberships.

Industries Profiled:
Pharmaceutical; Biotech; Biopharmaceutical; Consumer Products; Diagnostic; Medical Device; Manufacturing; Health Care; Consulting


Companies Profiled:
AbbVie; Allergan; Apellis Pharmaceuticals; AstraZeneca; Astellas; Bayer Healthcare; Baxter International; Biogen; bioMerieux; CSL Behring; Eisai; GlaxoSmithKline ; GRAIL; Grünenthal; Ipsen; Kyowa Kirin; MEDiSTRAVA; Merck KGaA; Merck; Merz Pharma; OTSUKA; Rhythm Pharmaceuticals; Roche; Sandoz; Sanofi Genzyme; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd; Taiho Pharma

Study Snapshot

Best Practices, LLC engaged 32 leaders from 27 biopharmaceutical companies in this research through a benchmarking survey. Seventy-five percent of benchmark participants serve at director and above level. Deep-dive interviews were conducted with select study participants to delve into further insights.

The study data is segmented by respondents’ geographic responsibility to provide region-wise medical education trends: US Only vs. Global (including U.S.) vs. Global (excluding U.S.).

Key topics covered in this report include:

  • Utilization and Effectiveness of Public and Closed Social Media Platforms
  • IME Grant Support for Patient Medical Education Activities
  • Medical Sponsorships/Corporate Memberships Management
  • Utilization and Effectiveness of Virtual Formats for Medical Education

Key Findings

Select key insights uncovered from this report are noted below. Detailed findings are available in the full report.

  • Sponsorships Managed by Medical Affairs: Most medical sponsorships are for education programs (95%) and presentations (74%) at conferences and medical society meetings.
  • Virtual Formats Used for Medical Education: For live education programs, webcasts on virtual conference platforms are most used (97%); this format is also seen as the most impactful.

Table of Contents

Sr. No.
Topic
Slide No.
I.
Executive SummaryPg. 4
Research Objectives, Methodology and Study AreasPg. 5
Universe of LearningPg. 6
Data SegmentationPg. 7
Study Analysis and RecommendationsPg. 8
An Overview of the Study FindingsPg. 9
Key Insights of the StudyPg. 11
II.
Social Media UtilizationPg. 13
III.
Patient Medical EducationPg. 30
IV.
Medical SponsorshipsPg. 45
V.
Virtual Formats and Time ConsiderationPg. 58
VI.
Participant’s DemographicsPg. 68
VII.
AppendixPg. 73
VIII.
About Best Practices, LLCPg. 76

    List of Charts & Exhibits

    I. Social Media Utilization

    • Support to HCP accredited medical education programs on public and closed social media platforms – Total benchmark class
    • Support to HCP accredited medical education programs on public and closed social media platforms – US Only vs. Global (including U.S.) vs. Global (excluding U.S.)
    • Interview narratives around Medical’s involvement in social media
    • Most utilized and effective social media platforms for medical education programs, Traits of an effective social media platform
    • Interview narrative around key considerations when gearing up to begin using social media
    • Trend around tweetorials and interview narrative around acceleration of technology platforms due to the pandemic
    • Interview narratives around success stories with social media and medical education
    • Public social media platform utilization and effectiveness
    • Interview narrative around hurdles faced by Medical Affairs while utilizing public platforms
    • Navigating social media use and RWE generation
    • Closed social media platform utilization and effectiveness
    • Challenges to utilizing social media for supporting medical education programs
    • Characteristics of an effective social media platform – US Only vs. Global (including U.S.) vs. Global (excluding U.S.)
    • Biggest drawbacks / impediments to utilizing social media platforms for medical education programs
    • Interview narratives around impediments to using social media platforms
    • Interview narrative around most crucial compliance issues associated with social media

    II. Patient Medical Education

    • Patient education activities through IME grant programs – Total benchmark class
    • Patient education activities through IME grant programs – US Only vs. Global (including U.S.) vs. Global (excluding U.S.)
    • Reasons for benchmark organizations supporting or not supporting patient education activities through their IME grant programs
    • Interview narrative around why Medical Affairs group is not active on public social media
    • Other departments involved in supporting patient education – Total benchmark class
    • Other departments involved in supporting patient education – US Only vs. Global (including U.S.) vs. Global (excluding U.S.)
    • Interview narrative around leading patient advocacy
    • Association between medical education programs for patients and HCPs – Total benchmark class
    • Association between medical education programs for patients and HCPs – US Only vs. Global (including U.S.) vs. Global (excluding U.S.)
    • Reasons cited for conducting patient education activities that are supported with IME grants in conjunction with HCP medical education; Reasons cited for supporting patient education activities that do not include HCP medical education through IME grants
    • Limitations and/or concerns faced by benchmark organizations regarding supporting patient education activities with IME grants
    • Impact of patient advocacy groups on medical education programs – Total benchmark class
    • Impact of patient advocacy groups on medical education programs – US Only vs. Global (including U.S.) vs. Global (excluding U.S.)
    • Advantages of partnering with patient advocacy groups for education programs, as observed by benchmark participants

    III. Medical Sponsorships

    • Management and oversight of medical sponsorships and corporate memberships – Total benchmark class
    • Management and oversight of medical sponsorships and corporate memberships – US Only vs. Global (including U.S.) vs. Global (excluding U.S.)
    • Platforms used for medical sponsorship management – Total benchmark class
    • Interview narrative around management of IME grants
    • Platforms used for medical sponsorship management – US Only vs. Global (including U.S.) vs. Global (excluding U.S.)
    • Interview narrative around management of medical sponsorships and corporate memberships through the IME platform
    • Types of sponsorships managed by Medical Affairs group – Total benchmark class
    • Differentiation between Medical Affairs-related sponsorship requests and sponsorship requests for other functions such as commercial
    • Nature of commercial and Medical Affairs sponsorship requests
    • Types of sponsorships managed by Medical Affairs group – US Only vs. Global (including U.S.) vs. Global (excluding U.S.)
    • Types of medical requests received through the same platform as IME grant requests – Total benchmark class
    • Types of medical requests received through the same platform as IME grant requests – US Only vs. Global (including U.S.) vs. Global (excluding U.S.)

    IV. Virtual Formats and Time Consideration

    • Virtual formats used for medical education programs – Total benchmark class
    • Interview narrative around formats of CME programs supported
    • Virtual formats used for medical education programs – US Only vs. Global (including U.S.) vs. Global (excluding U.S.)
    • Most effective time duration for virtual education program – Total benchmark class
    • Most effective time duration for virtual education program – US Only vs. Global (including U.S.) vs. Global (excluding U.S.)
    • Top three most impactful formats for medical education programs – Total benchmark class
    • Top three most impactful formats for medical education programs – US Only vs. Global (including U.S.) vs. Global (excluding U.S.)
    • Changes adopted by IME departments to meet the educational needs of learners during the global pandemic
    • Interview narrative around COVID triggered changes observed in medical education programs