Le potentiel de l'usage des technologies nouvelles dans le domaine de la santé n'est plus à prouver mais reste encore à exploiter. Avec le développement de la e-santé, l'autre corollaire, à savoir la m-santé devient encore ...
Tasteless comments about the growth of social communication often fall back on the hackneyed metaphor of "spreading like a cancer." The growth is uncontrolled, we are told, metastasizing in unexpected locations with ruthless speed. The body politic, we are told, is being rotted within by mutation. The traditions of the past are under siege, and we require radical surgery for a cure.
The panic is unwarranted, but the metaphor may be more apropos than we realize.
The astonishing (and Pulitzer Prize–winning) The Emperor of All Maladies describes the halting progress made in the fight against cancer since it was first identified by the Egyptian physician Imhotep 4500 years ago. For most of that grim history, cancer has been misunderstood, misidentified, and a hopeless diagnosis for its victims. Research was driven by a small number of obsessed, charismatic individuals, many of whom were unaware of related analyses being performed by doctors elsewhere—people didn't know things, and when they did it was not disseminated quickly or effectively. Social and intellectual stigmas slowed research. Nearly every advance in the treatment of cancer, from radiation therapy to chemotherapy and beyond, has come about within the lifetime of my grandparents.
And speaking of my grandparents, my grandmother was diagnosed with breast cancer in the late 1960s, but passed away in 1997—30 years later. She was part of the first generation of cancer patients who expected to survive. Yet she and her contemporaries whispered the word "cancer" as though to speak its name would give it a totemic power. Her battles were unmentioned, a private war fought behind closed doors, alone and largely silent.
Contrast that approach to the story of Xeni Jardin, one of the editors of Boing Boing, among the top sites on the Internet. She live-blogged her first mammogram, which returned a diagnosis of breast cancer. She has a Pinterest Page entitled "my life, now, with breast cancer" showing pictures of her medication, the ginger ale she uses to prevent chemo-induced nausea, and various inspirations for her feelings on a given day. And this open approach isn't limited to patients: Researchers now collaborate across electronic networks and borders, sharing information, ideas, and case studies. There is no isolation anymore in the fight against cancer. Even the best young adult novel of 2012, The Fault in Our Stars, was a dark romantic comedy about teenagers with cancer—the critical moment in the book comes when a group of teens get together to talk about their afflictions.
What do all of these stories have in common? They are all about cancer, but they are also about communication and the way that communication has transformed the way we think about disease, its treatment, and the connection between those who develop treatments and those who are treated. The story of cancer in many ways mirrors the story of the life sciences more generally, and how social interaction—and the legal implications for that social interaction—are shaping a different world.
Once upon a time, there were patients, and there were doctors. Patients were sick, doctors tried to repair them. For many centuries, that involved putting their humors back into balance through a variety of ineffective techniques that ranged from blood-letting to therapies best not mentioned before eating. Some doctors were also intellectuals, and engaged in some variety of research, or writing, or teaching. But there was no class of research institutions, and no infrastructure for solving problems. Information moved slowly, when it moved at all, and only a small number of people were sufficiently aware to do anything with that information even if they received it.
Today, there are patients, there are doctors, there are drug companies, there are university researchers, there are academic medical centers, there are government researchers, there are patient advocacy organizations, there are charitable foundations, there are social media platforms, there are large databases of clinical information, there are computer software modeling companies, there are regulators, there are investors, and so many other types of participants in the world of the life sciences that to name them all would be an exercise in futility. They all want information. They all want to know the latest facts. They all want everything to happen immediately, and they want to know about it as soon as it happens.
Yet the law is not about immediacy. The law is about considered approaches to a variety of competing interests. Despite many of our preconceptions about free speech, the law does not want us to know everything right away, or to have access to all treatments right away. Regulatory approvals, research, and intellectual property protection all come before treatment. This was fine in a world in which no one really knew what was going on—but with the growth of social media platforms and specialized advocacy groups, information is disseminated at the speed of light. Once on the market, drugs and medical devices are no longer quietly promoted to medical professionals, but are advertised to the public at large. More people think that they are the target audience, and are insulted when they are denied what they want.
What this means is that the law is often seen today as an obstacle to progress, rather than a facilitator. This does not mean, however, that the law can or should be ignored—quite to the contrary; the law and its application to the regulation of communication about the life sciences has never been more important, and regulators have never been more active. Rather, it is instead important for lawyers and marketers and researchers and businesses alike to recognize the meaning of this change, and to take that meaning into account in how they engage in their legal clearance, which is no longer taking place in a vacuum. Ironically, we are all under a microscope.
Every step of the process of researching, developing, clearing, marketing, and using any medication or device is now subject to a meta-conversation, a discussion about the wisdom of every path taken, of every decision made, by every participant in the chain. I have often spoken of the internet and social media as "the end of forgetting," as all things said online rapidly become your permanent record. This means that our words are promiscuous, merging with other communications from other sources, and swirling around platforms that we have never seen or engaged with. The brands we create develop lives beyond the basket of associations we assign to our products, and we must participate in the conversation or allow the discussion to turn against us.
So what does all of this really signify? Most discussions of the law by lawyers talk about specific changes in the law, and how they can be addressed by their clients. But for a lawyer who works in social media, that perspective is far too limited. The technology changes too quickly, and the culture shifts every day (to feel profoundly behind the curve, just ask a 13 year-old about the technology choices she makes, and why). Instead, clients and lawyers must focus on trying to become more aware of the context for these discussions, and the technological advances that give them momentum. A life sciences company that is not profoundly sensitive to the social media environment and to the legal implications of their participation (and the participation of their ultimate customers, whether doctors or patients) is not only potentially getting into trouble (the lawyer voice inside me is screaming "what about the adverse event reporting? What about the privacy considerations?"), but also missing out on incredible opportunities.
My grandmother didn't want to speak about her illness, even as she fought it successfully for decades. Today, everyone has a megaphone, and they want to talk. So don't pretend that the world is the same. Figure out how to join in the conversation.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Specific Questions relating to this article should be addressed directly to the author.
The last 12-months have seen the pharma industry become increasingly comfortable with social media, or at least the idea of using it.
Social media channels were often used to support off-line campaigns and, where three years ago the launch of a new Twitter account would have been big news, this year it was pretty much expected that companies should use social media.
Noteworthy uses of social media by pharma in 2012 included Roche’s sponsorship in March of the Diabetes Nest platform, a Twitter-based social network that curates, filters and presents relevant, real-time conversations to the diabetes online community.
In June, Pfizer went all-out with a major US social media campaign to kick-start a conversation about ageing. The company’s long-term Get Old initiative includes Facebook and Twitter presences, which run alongside a bespoke online community that will allow users to share and view stories, photos and videos about getting old, and even vote on how they feel about ageing.
Then in November, GlaxoSmithKline allowed its vice president of global brand communications , Kerry O’Callaghan, to use the corporate @GSKTwitter account and participate in a tweet chat about internal communications strategies for major events. (Naturally the focus was on GSK’s sponsorship of the London 2012 Olympic games.)
The rise of online pin board Pinterest during 2012 presented, and still presents, pharma with a rare opportunity to engage with an emerging social media channel.
It may not have grabbed as much press attention as Twitter, but it is the first new social media channel to have threatened to really go mainstream in the last couple of years and, in January 2012, it became the fastest social media site to break the 10 million unique visitor mark. The first big pharma company to join Pinterest was Bayer in April, when it began using it to share images and information about its activities in the US.
By September, the number of companies exploring Pinterest was gradually gaining momentum, as Boehringer Ingelheim, GE Healthcare boards, Menarini and Novo Nordisk all started pinning.
A return to blogging
Blogs were one of the first social networks that pharma companies used as external-facing communications tools, but their long-form, long-term nature has seen them overtaken by tools that are quicker and easier to use, such as Twitter.
Nevertheless, blogs have remained a constant presence on the pharma social media scene, and each year has generally seen one or two new additions to the ranks.
This year, however, it felt like blogging had a resurgence. The numbers remain fairly low, but companies launched a variety of specialised and general blogs over the last 12 months.
In October, AstraZeneca launched a science-focused blog called Lab Talk that it hopes will eventually grow into an online scientific forum. The new site aims to be a place that scientists from within AZ and the wider industry can discuss “cutting-edge science and innovation” and – perhaps somewhat hopefully - share their ideas and approaches.
But while AZ was building on the experience of setting up its corporate blog (AZ Health Connections, which launched in 2009), Sanofi took the opposite path in December, going from the specialised Discuss Diabetes blog it launched in 2011 to debut in December its new corporate Speaking of Sanofi blog.
There were further blogs launches throughout the year from Bayer, which assembled a team of UK patient contributors for its diabetes blog; Lilly, which launched in Canada the first of a series of local versions of its LillyPad corporate blog; Shire with its Your Partner In Epilepsy blog; and Boehringer Ingelheim, with its More Health corporate social responsibility blog.
From blogs to Twitter to Pinterest, when taken as a whole pharma’s initiatives in 2012 show an industry making ever-greater use of social media channels. But, the still fragmented nature of companies’ use of the technology suggests that while they might be comfortable with the idea of digital channels, in practice there’s still some way to go.
Via Thibaud Guymard
Si les réseaux sociaux ont indéniablement pénétrés dans nos vies, tous ne sont pas logés à la même enseigne. Bien entendu Facebook fait toujours figure de champion en 2012 et Twitter est toujours le bon challenger.
10 idées reçues sur la mise en œuvre de vos réseaux sociaux internesJournal du NetSi une majorité d'entreprises ne savent pas par quel côté prendre le sujet, force est de constater qu'un certain nombre d'idées reçues planent encore autour de la...
iPhone 5S : en production début 2013 ?MacPlusL'iPhone 5S n'attendra pas un an avant de sortir, prévient le Commercial Times : le site chinois annonce en effet qu'Apple va débuter la phase de test de la production du successeur du smartphone actuel...
Alere’s purchase of Medapps prompts me to discuss a question posed to me daily, “What is the ROI of digital health technologies?” Discussants in the Digital Health Linkedin Group were surprised at the purchase price of ‘no greater than $22M’ for Medapps. The real issue of these technologies in my mind is not as much what the potential market is as what the ROI is. I am not going to apply economic theory or formulas in this post, as I have no formal training in economics. However, I will make this a qualitative discussion because it is a fundamental which is relevant to the adoption of such technologies, as well as furnishing some examples.
Android : 95% des utilisateurs smartphone seraient satisfaitsClubic.comSelon l'enquête, Android conquiert la quasi-totalité de ses utilisateurs : 95% se disent satisfaits de leur expérience sur smartphone, et 91% sur tablette.
L'Usine NouvelleLes utilisateurs d'Android achètent moins d'applications que ceux d ...L'Usine NouvelleLa plateforme d'Apple serait plus incitative au paiement et ses utilisateurs plus enclins à payer pour des services mobiles.
Réseaux Sociaux d'Entreprise.L'offre RSE publiée par SDE Consulting a été complétée par Azendoo, Kosmopolead et Hoozin http://t.co/dWYO9QCI... (Réseaux Sociaux et Collaboratifs Internes ou Étendus: Le marché du RSE en 2012 | @scoopit...
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.