Demographics

All 32 (100%) companies responded to the survey. There was a broad distribution of companies by size with 25% (8/32) having Medical Information responsibilities for less than 5 products, 28% (9/32) having between 6 and 25 products, 16% (5/32) having between 26 and 50 products, and 31% (10/32) having greater than 50 products. A majority (20/32, 63%) of companies had at least one product approved in the last 12 months, accounting for 68 new products on the market.

While 38% (12/32) of the Medical Information groups are responsible for US only functions, 25% (8/32) are Global only and the remaining 38% (12/32) have both US and Global responsibilities. The core responsibility of Medical Information is responding to unsolicited requests for information on their products from HCPs or patients. While there are many channels for receiving inquiries, 63% of inquiries were received through the Medical Information Call Centers, followed by 10% from the website, 2% from chatbot, 1% from a medical information app, and 24% from other channels. These other channels included field medical, sales representatives, medical booth at congresses, mail or e-mail, and Customer Relationship Management (CRM) software.

A majority, 81% (26/32) of Medical Information Departments have implemented innovative technology since 2019. (Fig. 1) Content innovations included infographics, health literate style of writing, conversion to HTML format, shorter documents, incorporation of graphics, next generation Scientific Response Documents (SRD), and patient summaries. Other technology included virtual Medical Information booth, new Medical Information database, Medical Information analytics, video or live chat, data visualization tools for metrics, and a temperature stability calculator. The main driver for the implementation of the technology was to remain up to date with industry changes (24/26, 92%), followed by customer expectations (17/26, 65%), omnichannel engagement strategy (14/26, 54%), internal drivers (11/26, 42%), and finally COVID-19 (6/26, 23%). A majority of companies that implemented new technology, 54% (14/ 26), felt that technology did not impact personnel resources, while 31% (8/26) felt that there was an increase in workload or they needed additional personnel. Table 1 delineates some of the specific comments concerning the impact from technology.

Figure. 1

New technologies implemented since 2019.

Table 1. Technology impact on resources (some specific comments)Social Media

Company Medical Information personnel are becoming more involved in answering unsolicited requests on social media with 22% (7/32) following processes to answer requests on Twitter®, 19% (6/32) on Facebook®, and 3% (1/32) on LinkedIn®. These percentages have increased from 2018 for Twitter® and Facebook® (4%, 1/27, for each) and have remained consistent for LinkedIn® at 4% (1/27). (Fig. 2) Additionally, 3 companies (9%) reported having their own Medical Information Twitter page (2 with < 1 K, 1 with > 5 K followers), 2 companies (6%) reported having a Medical Information LinkedIn® page (1 > 5 K, 1 < 1 K followers) and 1 company (3%) reported having a Medical Information-specific Facebook® page with > 5 K followers. On Medical Information-specific social media pages, a large variation in posts per week existed, ranging from 0–7 posts per week for Twitter® and LinkedIn® and 3–5 posts per week for Facebook®.

Figure. 2

Responding to unsolicited requests through corporate social media page (n = 32).

Instant Messaging

Instant Messaging apps allow for texting or chat within a specific application and are not part of a website. Instant Messaging apps are being used regionally by 13% (4/32) of companies: 2 companies use WeChat (China), 1 uses WhatsApp (Brazil, Mexico), and 1 is using ChatNow. Instant Messages are being serviced by in-house personnel (2/4; 50%) and third-party contact centers (2/4; 50%).

Website

A total of 30/32 (94%) companies responded they provide medical information through a company Medical Information website in comparison to 74% (20/27) in 2018. Eight companies (27%, 8/30) use an existing commercial platform to house their Medical Information website including Salesforce (2/30), Amazon Web Services (1/30), Drupal™ (1/30), SciMax (1/30), MMI (1/30), Toolehouse (1/30) and Amazon experience manager (1/30). Twenty-one companies (70%) have a custom Medical Information website developed and one company (3%) did not respond to this question. Web content management systems varied across companies: Adobe® Experience Manager (9/30), Drupal™ (6/30), WordPress® (3/30) and other (12/30; including Veeva, IRMS CM, Salesforce, Advenio, and custom developed systems). In 2018 no one used Adobe Experience Manager, Veeva, or WordPress®. Salesforce (3/27) and other (8/27) were the most popular options in 2018. Drupal™ was used by 2/27 companies in 2018 vs. 6/30 in 2022. Medical Information websites are maintained internally (16/30), externally through a vendor (9/30) or both (5/30). If maintained internally, departments responsible for this activity include Medical Affairs/Medical Information and/or Business Technology/Information Technology. Vendors responsible for maintenance include Docmation, PRECISION, Cognizant, FFW, InTouch and Anju. Overall, 50% (15/30) do provide a link to their Medical Information website from their branded sites, with 7/30 providing links on all their branded websites and 8/30 providing links on some of their branded websites. Only two companies provide a link from their branded website(s) to their patient website (1 for all products, 1 for some products). When asked whether Medical Information websites are part of broader Medical Affairs websites, 11/30 companies responded yes, 18/30 responded no and 1/30 did not respond.

HCP Website

Of the 30 respondents with a Medical Information website, 29 are designed for HCPs. All of those site (29/29, 100%) allow for self-authentication. One company responded that they allow for self-authentication, validation (user’s name and National Provider Identifier (NPI) number or other identifying information), and full registration (multiple pieces of information). For non-US based websites, nine allow for self-authentication, seven require validation, and five require full registration. Two companies (7%) have US websites with registration to view specific content and three companies have non-US websites with this same feature. Self-authentication rates increased from 41% (11/27) in 2018 to 100% in 2022.

Regarding available functionalities on HCP websites, a majority (27/29, 93%) of companies have webforms to submit medical information inquiries and 1–800 numbers. Few companies offer video chat (2/29, 7%), chatbot (7/29, 24%) and the ability to identify local representatives (6/29, 21%). Chatbot usage increased to 24% in 2022 from 4% in 2018.

Twenty-five percent (8/32) of survey respondents using various chatbot vendors (Internal-2, Lifelink-1, Indegene®-1, IBM® Watson-1, ConversationHEALTH-3) have implemented a chatbot to help provide medical information services at their company. This compares to only 1 company in 2018. Of these eight companies, the majority (7/8) have a button-based component to their chatbot of which 38% (3/8) have a free text Artificial Intelligence (AI) component in addition to button options, and 13% (1/8) of chatbots have voice driven capabilities. All (3/3) companies with free text/AI capabilities feel that the Natural Language Processing (NLP)/AI interprets the free text and gets the HCP the correct information. Chatbots provide many types of information including SRDs (6/8; 75%), short response Q&A (5/8; 63%), links to websites (5/8; 63%), product information (PI) language or links to PI (5/8; 63%), technical information only (2/8; 25%), and links to publications (1/8; 13%). Many companies (3/8; 37.5%) have been able to free-up or redistribute up to 20–35% of contact center agent time through their chatbot implementation. Noted limitations of chatbots include training and making late breaking data available on Day 0 and only covering the top questions received, not all potential questions. Of those companies without a chatbot (n = 24), 13 are considering implementing and 9 are not considering implementing due to cost, regulatory, legal, and compliance concerns, as well as the oversight needed, and time and technology concerns.

Eleven companies (11/29, 38%) answered they offer other functionalities on the HCP website including: a temperature stability calculator, disease state education, list of key journal publications, Medical Information appointment scheduling, search retrieval of SRDs, clinical trial inquiry submission and links to clinical trials and investigator sponsored research. Various content types are available on HCP website to search, download, share, and bookmark. (Fig. 3) In comparison to 2018, there is an increase in the availability of SRDs, PowerPoint presentations, videos, infographics, and webinars/podcasts. The only content that showed a decrease was Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) which declined from 22% in 2018 to 10% in 2022 (Fig. 4). As of 2022, Medical Information websites are now offering access to clinicaltrials.gov (52%), publications (52%), posters (52%), and congress materials (41%). Six companies identified as having HTML formatted SRDs; the content was developed by an outside agency (2/6, 33%), internally developed (3/6, 50%), or through an automated process (1/6, 17%).

Figure. 3

Access and storage of information from Medical Information website (n = 29*). *Of the remaining 3 companies, 2 do not have a website and 1 does not have an HCP website.

Figure. 4

Availability of information/content on Medical Information websites 2018 (n = 27) vs. 2022 (n = 29). HTML = Hypertext markup language, FAQ = frequently asked questions.

Patient Websites

Of the 30 respondents having a Medical Information website, 9/30 (30%) have a website for patients/caregivers. Functionalities included in these patient websites include a 1–800 number (8/9, 89%), webform to submit unsolicited requests (6/9, 66%), webform to submit adverse events/product complaints (AE/PC) (4/9, 44%), and chatbot (2/9, 22%). Information available on the patient website includes SRDs in PDF format (5/9, 56%), links to clinicaltrials.gov (4/9, 44%), interactive tools (2/9, 22%), infographics (1/9, 11%), medically (1/9, 11%) and commercially (1/9, 11%) created patient education materials. Three companies (3/9, 33%) answered that they provide patient information leaflets and patient financial support.

Search Functionality Within Medical Information Websites

All of the Medical Information websites for HCPs featured a search function (29/29, 100%). Interestingly, four sites (4/9 44%) also provide a search function on their Medical Information website for patients. Search functionality (respondents could select more than 1 option) included key words (23 sites), drop-down lists (13 sites), full-text search (8 sites), and AI/NLP (1 site). (Fig. 5) Most sites (16/26 respondents, 62%) impose a limit on the number of search results returned (1–3 results, 2; 4–5 results, 6; 6–10 results, 4; > 10 results, 4). Ten sites (10/26, 38%) had no limits. The rationales for sites with no limits included: since there are limited responses posted on the website a limit to the search is not needed; the use of key words negates the need for a limit; a limitation of system functionality; and the key word tag imposes automatic limits. One company noted that while they did not impose a limit on search results, the key word tags impose a limit; however, this means of search is not user-friendly and will be changing in the future. The formats of responses returned in search results included SRDs in PDF (26/28, 93%) and HTML (6/26, 21%) formats, slide decks (8/28, 29%), publications (6/28, 21%), posters (9/28, 32%), congress materials (6/28, 21%), and FAQs (3/28, 11%).

Figure. 5

Search functionality on Medical Information Websites – 2018 (n = 21) vs. 2022 (n = 29). AI = artificial intelligence.

Discoverability of Medical Information Websites

Of the 30 respondents having a Medical Information website, 29/30 websites (97%) are discoverable by Google™ and/or other search engines. This is an increase from 9/25 (36%) sites in the 2018 survey. On-label information is directly discoverable within the search results from these websites in 14 companies (47%), consistent-with-label information in 10 companies (33%), and off-label information in three companies (10%). (Fig. 6) Search engine optimization (SEO) resources were allocated in five companies (5/30, 17%) and included both internal and external/vendor groups. Additionally, four companies (4/30, 13%) indicated using search engine marketing (paid search) to facilitate customers finding their content.

Figure. 6

Discoverability of content on Google™ or other search engines (n = 30). Note Not all companies responded yes/no to the discoverability of consistent with label or off-label information.

Customer Satisfaction Surveys

A customer satisfaction survey is conducted by less than 50% of the companies (14/30, 47%). The most common time for the survey to be served up is at the end of the interaction (7/14, 50%); other avenues include a static link on page (2), a link in footer (2), available to selected individuals (1), and in the “Contact us” section of an SRD (1). Regardless of the method of survey provision, the response rate from both patients and HCPs is < 1%. A variety of question formats are used in the customer satisfaction survey such as a Likert scale, multiple choice, yes/no, and open-ended questions. These questions explore the customers’ overall experience, content quality and level of information, value of information to support patient care or clinical decision, customer effort, or format satisfaction.

Metrics

Overall, 88% (28/30) of the companies collect website metrics. Of the 25 who responded as to tools used for tracking website metrics, most of them use Google™ Analytics (13/25, 52%) or Adobe® Analytics (7/25, 28%). The capture rate for key metrics analyzed include traffic on the website in terms of visitors per year (16/28, 57%), page views annually (12/28, 43%), frequency of same visitor (11/28, 39%), volume of content download (8/28, 29%), and average time spent on the website (10/28, 36%). There was an association between the number of visitors and the number of pages viewed. (Fig. 7) The route by which customers access the website included through Google™ [27%] or the corporate [14%] or brand [12%] site.

Figure. 7

Number of visitors vs. Number of pages viewed.

Medical Information Website Awareness

Companies increase awareness of their Medical Information Websites in a variety of ways, with most using multiple strategies to reach HCPs. The most common strategy, 77% (23/30), is relying on field medical to verbally inform HCPs of the existence of the Medical Information website. This was followed by 60% (18/30) having a link on Medical Information letters and/or correspondences, and 40% (12/30) having a business card or other material left behind by field medical. (Fig. 8) A total of 53% (10/19) are utilizing social media to broaden the reach of their Medical Information website.

Figure. 8

Strategies used to inform HCPs of the Medical Information website (n = 30).

Medical Information Trends and Insights

Medical Information Departments generate useful and impactful insights and trends based on their interactions with HCPs and patients. The most common method of communicating Medical Information trends and insights to internal stakeholders is via in person or virtual meetings (77%, 24/ 32) followed by e-mail (65%, 20/32) and newsletters (23%, 7/32). There are an array of technology and systems that are used for insights and analytics of inquiries. The most common is Tableau® (36%, 10/28) followed by Qlik Sense® (32%, 9/28). Since 2018, there has been a shift in the use of these two programs with usage of Tableau® increasing from 24% (6/25) and Qlik Sense® (formerly QlikView®) increasing from 4% (1/25). The Medical Information staff is responsible for performing the analytics on inquiry data (68%, 21/31).

Microsoft® Word tops the list of tools being used for content creation (78%, 25/32), followed by Veeva (59%, 19/32) and PowerPoint (34%, 11/32). There is wide variation in the technology platform used for delivering four key functions of Medical Information: customer relationship management (CRM) for inquiries (not Medical Science Liaison (MSL) system), content storage, content workflow management, and fulfillment/package creation. Most companies are utilizing commercial, off-the-shelf platforms compared to home-grown, customized solutions. On average companies utilize two technology platforms (range 1 – 4) to complete these four functions, with some utilizing as many as three platforms for the same function.

Veeva, by far, is the most common technology platform used for these various functions, utilized by 87% of respondents (27/ 31). The most common technology used for CRM for inquiries and fulfillment/package creation is Salesforce, and for content storage and content workflow management is Veeva. Other technology platforms used to a lesser degree include IRMS, Mavens, SharePoint, Documentum™, Docuvera™, and MedInquirer (now SciMax MI). (Fig. 9). Only two companies used one platform to accomplish all four tasks, one is using IRMS and one is using CARA from Generis. Most of the technology platforms for the functions of content creation, content workflow management, website framework, and inquiry intake are global in nature. Social media and chatbots tend to be used at the local level.

Figure. 9

Technology platforms for customer relationship management (CRM) for inquires, content storage, workflow management, and fulfillment/package creation. (n = 31). Other include CARA (one GMI), Drawloop, and doDOC.

There are numerous other technologies that Medical Information Departments are working on. (Table 2) The three-year horizon for Medical Information related technology focuses on expansion of websites and chatbots; increase accessibility, access, and personalization of information; innovative formats including infographics and interactive SRDs; structured authoring; and AI and machine learning searches. (Table 3).

Table 2. Other technologiesTable 3. Future plans for technology