Increased Use of Twitter at a Medical Conference: A Report and a Review of the Educational Opportunities
rob halkes's insight:
"New" pharma is in a changing process of rearranging its channels, messages and relationship with target audiences. Although they are not so much early innovators as a brach, they do want and try to get on. Such a pity that they do not find too many credits for their trying.. It might also be due to the fact that health care itself isnot known as a very brught and eager innovators' branch. LEt's be happy with those who try and do find bes paractices along the way. But still, I guess, the main finding seems to be: the length of the journey to take is long.. In my view that is precisely the thing thats thrills me for one! We are going to discover how much we don't know about health, care for health and medical care. Let's be determined to that road!
Welcome to the 1st Annual "Top Ten Internet-Smart Doctors in the World". Now, why, you may ask, do we presume to say "World"?
Because the internet, as Mr. Gates says, has made the world a global village.
On the internet, one can find out many wonderful things, and, for this page, you have access to things that are happening in faraway lands, as if they were next door.
Doctors are increasingly using the internet, to communicate, to educate, and to use sometimes as medical devices. And now docs are tackling social media, which a few to the Top Ten do. The Top Ten come from all over, from Australia to the Bay area. There is one from the Netherlands, one from Hungary, one from India, and one from Australia. The other six are Yanks. And they are all MDs.
Characteristics that the top ten share are traits of enthusiasm for their craft, intelligence, diligence, intimate knowledge of how the net can be leveraged to benefit healthcare, and love of teaching.
rob halkes's insight:
Congratulations to Eric Topol, Mike Cadogan, Berci Mesko, Pieter Kubben, Peter Diamantis, Cameron Powell, Iltifat Husain, Summer Sehti, Daniel Kraft and Kevin Pho!
On Monday, a federal appeals court in New York threw out the conviction of a pharma sales rep for promoting off-label use of a prescription drug. The court found the sales rep’s First Amendment right to free speech had been violated. Judge Denny Chin wrote: "In the fields of medicine and public health, where information can save lives, it only furthers the public interest to ensure that decisions about the use of prescription drugs, including off-label usage, are intelligent and well-informed.”
The ruling essentially follows the notion that "The more information available to everyone, the better. If physicians can discuss alternative uses of drugs, others should be able to do the same.”
So far, not surprisingly, FDA has not commented on the ruling.
What does it mean?
What does this mean for FDA?
What does it mean for patients?
What does this mean for pharmaceutical companies today?
If any change is to come from this, I expect it to be slow. It’s definitely something to keep an eye on. And this is just one court's decision. Future decisions for similar cases, as well as escalation to the Supreme Court, may further solidify the situation one way or the other.
Cegedim Relationship Management has undertaken its third annual survey of life sciences professionals in the United States to provide a real-time snapshot of this year’s trends.
This year reveals distinct concerns with the flux of the current commercial model and reinforces the support for digital solutions. Nearly three-fourths (74%) of respondents point to the changing commercial business model as the biggest issue keeping them up at night.
The formidable issues of concern remain constant from 2011 to 2012, especially the evolution of the current business model which holds fast as the primary concern.
Based on a scale from one to five, nearly three-fourths (74%) of respondents ranked the changing commercial business model as their first, second or third priority of concern.
As Lars Bogner, Head of Section, Digital Center of Excellence, Corporate Marketing, Leo Pharma, stated in his talk at this year’s DigiPharm event people have have thousands of conversations online everyday which could impact your brand. Are you listening to them?
Below are the top 5 tips inspired by Lars’ presentation:
Looking into the future of the value chain of the pharmaceutical, biotech and life sciences industry. These reports provide an in-depth analysis of research and development (R&D), sales and marketing or commercial, supply chain functions.
The majority of online Europeans don’t want to learn more about prescription drugs directly from pharmaceutical companies, according to new research.
But the study, from Manhattan Research, found that a sizable minority - 40 per cent - did want more drug information from pharma, as long as it doesn’t reach them via Facebook or Twitter. The Cybercitizen Health Europe found that among consumers already using, or interested in, online information and tools from pharmaceutical companies, only 13 per cent wanted to access this content on Facebook and 5 per cent on Twitter.
In contrast, the study found 43 per cent of this audience would like to obtain pharma resources from websites about conditions and diseases...
The report also outlined an area of opportunity for pharma to provide practical patient education, with online consumers indicating they are much more interested in accessing online resources such as disease and treatment information and condition management tools, than in online contests and games.
Who gets to say what’s patient-centered? (Hint: the one who’s IN the center) by e-PAtient Dave
PCORI’s charter – its very name – is to develop Patient Centered Outcomes. That raises the question:
Who gets to say what’s patient-centered? We should.
The scientific establishment won’t turn on a dime with this one patient weekend, so what COULD we persuade PCORI and the attending scientists about? My view:
To me the core question of the weekend is: Who gets to say what’s patient-centered? I say, it’s the one who’s in the center. Who else could possibly know if things are balanced around them?
So, I suggest: in any patient-centered outcomes project, patients should participate not just in selecting projects or goals/outcomes (from a scientist-generated menu), but in defining the goals, the desired outcomes, even what they’d like researchers to pursue.
This is a maturing of the patient’s role, and a shift in the researcher’s role to one of partnership rather than “doctor knows best.”
So here’s a possible outcome for this PCORI weekend: can we agree, as a core part of the PCORI culture, that it’s time for patients to move into the front seat, and be part of the process from the very beginning?
Patients could shift from just selecting from scientist-defined outcomes to helping specify what objectives would be valuable in the patient’s view, and even how the results should be evaluated.
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Margaret Hamburg Pay attention, as I can’t say this seriously enough. Last week, the FDA took a drug off the market, and the reasons should send shivers of fear down the backs of consumers,...
What is #pharma100? pharma, top 100 influencers in pharma. Healthcare Social Media Hashtag. Real-time Analytics.
rob halkes's insight:
Second time in a row: changes can be seen. But also, influence of period on which survey for nominations is made. I can see relations between those that are on hollidays, like Andrew Spong, and those that aren't, like John Nosta..
Surveys and nominations and, for that matter: lists creations, are highly influenced by time factors, and popularity of people involved. Indeed: who is able to activate most people to vote for oneself.
It is not that I am against lists, but we have to interpret them with care...
Imagine these effects when quality of doctors are at stake... ;-)
John Mack, created a preso on his views of the nealry foregone year. Pharma has made a development indeed.
But has it gone as you expected it?
I for one think not: acknowledging what new opportunities have arisen for pharma, stays a hard thing to do for management. The hardest thing? In my observation, as I can infer so from my discussions with them, is the (only partly) departure from calling routines as the major activity to market to promote one's products. All centres around developing e-detailing and with it larger connections to one's target groups.
In the period from about 2007 till now, much has been published about the new business/commercial model for pharma. Recently we have completed a way to do so, with demonstrating data and all.
Yet, it is still a long road to go, before we see pharma iinovate to real health care markets, indeed.
Pharma: from (e)detailing to physician and patient excellence, a new commercial approach.
The demand for a new commercial model in Pharma is striking. Lots of talk about social media, KAM, gaming, mobile and all kinds of excellences: customer, sales and marketing.
But what's the roadmap starting from the current situation of pharma's commercial business approach, to get to a new commercial relationship for the (local affiliates) of the pharmaceutical industry to its very customers?
I invite you to the scetch of this.
I made this outline on the basis of having gone that road and now look back on the (very) positive results.
Hold yourself to your seat: it might feel like a roller coaster! But doesn't just make that all the fun?
You may challenge me ;-) but thanks for your attention anyway!
Emily Willingham writes: According to this Washington Post longread by Peter Whoriskey, the bald truth about industry-funded clinical trials for new drugs is not pretty..
This history of “abuse and distortion,” even if the relative number of cases is limited, leaves consumers wondering how they can tell what’s trustworthy.
What’s a consumer to do? What any consumer should always do: Caveat emptor. We can do no more than that as consumers.
But for people whose therapy choices are limited to new arrivals, whose decisions are about life or prolongation of life versus impending death, not only is waiting a luxury they cannot afford, they may well be the ones whom time tests.
I’m not one of those who thinks that “Big Pharma” is a monolith of evil trying to make a buck, regardless of human costs. The thousands of researchers in industry are not members of a secret cabal obsessed only with immense wealth. But if industry wants to shine up a reputation dimmed by suspect behaviors of some of its own, voluntarily turning to independent evaluation and reporting of transparent data sets is one step toward polishing away some of that tarnish.
So says Emily...
For a start of discussion: the reseraches who initiated the reserach, one could state they are objective researchers as well, aren't they?
I have witnessed reaerchers state that all pharmaceutical research money should be transfered to "neutral and objective" reserachers to perform the reserach! I would say: who is to select them? reserachers are at leas dependent on the very job they have - and keeping up the job, at least in competition with other independent reserachers, might make them less independent..?
In order to continue to be viable in the next decade, the pharmaceutical industry is adapting in ways that might seem surprising just a few years ago. The pressure to reduce costs coupled with the need to be more innovative and still comply with U.S.
In September Roche UK invited representatives from 50 patient groups for an intriguing event at The Wellcome Collection in London.
The first part of this article covered Roche’s goals for the Share+ social media and digital summit and I’ll now turn the patient groups themselves and the issues they face when it comes to social media and digital technology.
Challenges mentioned by the audience during the sessions included: how to make websites more user-friendly for the elderly; developing local social media policies; and building and mobilising patient communities to advocate for better access to medicines or services.
Can online social networks encourage improved health behavior? GE Healthcare recently commissioned consumer research related to this topic and convened a global panel of experts to discuss it, as well.
The collective results show that engagement is notable but there’s work to do to convert conversations into changes in behavior.
The survey found out that 26 percent of U.S. online adults have discussed health information online—through social media, online communities, message boards or forums—in the past 12 months. It also found that a conservative 30 percent of those who had discussed health information online have changed a health behavior, such as a change in diet or fitness, as a result.
According to the survey, many online adults agreed that others knowing about their diet, health and fitness, and/or specific medical condition(s) is the top concern to discussing health information online (46 percent).
However, during the GE Healthcare virtual roundtable on social networking in health, held in October 2012, actively followed on Twitter, the panel of global experts stressed that accuracy of information should be even more top of mind for consumers (vs. privacy).
How can pharma engage with payers who are less digitally savvy than their clinical counterparts and are more than a little sceptical about information and where it comes from?
Digitally enabled solutions have and continue to transform the way that healthcare is monitored and delivered, leading to better patient outcomes and efficiencies in the delivery of healthcare.
Digital has transformed the way the pharma industry engages and communicates with some of its key customers. From disease awareness websites, to discussion forums, to self-detailing, the industry is increasingly incorporating digital platforms as a critical component in the commercialisation of a medicine.
However, when it comes to payers, it seems that one of the industry’s most important customers has been largely excluded from this ‘digital evolution’. While the industry is always being told how much time key customers are spending online, and educated about their digital behaviours, there is little to inform payer digital communication programmes....
Poll Shows Growing Satisfaction with Pharma's use of Social Media
Posted by Ben Steele on Oct 25, 2012
A recent survey indicates that those clinging to the argument that pharma are behind in the digital space, may be beginning to fall behind themselves...
A recently released WEGO Health/Digital Health Coalition survey suggests that pharma companies may finally be warming up to social media. The recently-conducted survey of 356 health activists showed that 81% believed pharma used social media 'to provide their communities with important updates on products or services'. The amount of people who subscribed to the above viewpoint went up 9% from last year’s survey findings.
Europe's drug regulator has started an infringement procedure against Switzerland's Roche to investigate its alleged failure to properly report tens of thousands of potential drug side effects.
If found guilty, the world's biggest maker of cancer medicines could be fined up to 5 percent of annual EU turnover which totaled 12.8 billion francs ($13.8 billion) in 2011, or 640 million francs.
It was first time the London-based European Medicines Agency (EMA) has launched such proceedings since legislation came into force five years ago.
"The agency will report the outcome of its investigation to the European Commission who may impose fines or periodic penalty payments ... if it finds that Roche has committed an infringement of its obligations," the EMA said on Tuesday.
The issue of drug-safety reporting by Roche was first highlighted by the agency in June after a routine inspection by British investigators found it had failed to fully assess up to 80,000 cases of possible adverse drug reactions. ... read the blog
GlaxoSmithKline, criticized in the past for keeping important information about its medicines to itself, is to lift the lid on more of its drug secrets.
Three months after GSK was fined $3 billion for fraud in the United States, where prosecutors accused it of concealing safety issues, chief executive Andrew Witty said on Thursday detailed data from its clinical trials would be made available to other researchers. That would include anonymised patient-level results that sit behind clinical trials of approved and failed drugs.
Britain's biggest drugmaker will set up an independent panel of experts to review requests submitted by researchers, which will then be vetted for scientific merit, a company spokesman said. The new system will start at the beginning of next year.
The move is a first for a major pharmaceutical company.
In July, GSK reached a record $3-billion settlement with the U.S. government, pleading guilty to charges that it had provided misleading information on some drugs, including antidepressant Paxil and diabetes pill Avandia.
"By being more open with our clinical trial data, we also hope to help further scientific understanding," Witty said in a statement.
Other companies have faced similar charges in the United States and Witty's decision to expose his company to greater scrutiny may push rivals to follow suit.
The industry is, in any case, under pressure from regulators to open up. The European Medicines Agency recently decided to make its own data vaults containing drug company trial results available for systematic scrutiny.
Critics of the drug industry, including the respected Cochrane Collaboration, which carries out systematic healthcare reviews, have long argued that researchers need access to full data from clinical trials.
Such information is a treasure trove for scientists wanting to test drug company claims and expose product deficiencies.
The industry's failure to provide full access to such data was blasted in a recent book which received widespread public attention in Britain; "Patients are harmed when data is withheld," Ben Goldacre, author of "Bad Pharma", told Reuters.
"It is great that GSK has made further promises of greater transparency, but promises are not enough, because they have been broken in the past. We will only see if this promise is different in the years to come."
Witty reaffirmed a commitment to seek publication of results of all clinical trials evaluating its medicines - regardless of whether the results were positive or negative for the company - in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Sharing your scoops to your social media accounts is a must to distribute your curated content. Not only will it drive traffic and leads through your content, but it will help show your expertise with your followers.
How to integrate my topics' content to my website?
Integrating your curated content to your website or blog will allow you to increase your website visitors’ engagement, boost SEO and acquire new visitors. By redirecting your social media traffic to your website, Scoop.it will also help you generate more qualified traffic and leads from your curation work.
Distributing your curated content through a newsletter is a great way to nurture and engage your email subscribers will developing your traffic and visibility.
Creating engaging newsletters with your curated content is really easy.