Health smartees 2010

HEALTH SMARTEES 2010, June 17

WELCOME @ InSites Consulting

Taking Health Research Forward

20

10

2Health Study 2010 | How to engage in the conversation with empowered patients | © InSites Consulting, 2010.© In

Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

09.00 – 09.30 : Breakfast

09.30 – 09.35 : Welcome @ our 2010 Health SMARTEES

The agenda of the day

Saartje Van den Branden, Research Manager Health, InSites Consulting

09.35 – 10.30 : How to engage in the conversation with empowered patients?

SCOOP! Results of the Global Health Study 2010

Magali Geens, Research Director Health, InSites Consulting

Including latest search data by Google Healthcare

by Julia Loncar, Industry Manager, Google Healthcare (EXCUSED – No permit to travel)

10.30 – 11.00 : Coffee Break

11.00 – 11.30 : Using Social Media Nethnography in Health Research

Tapping into conversations of connected patients and caregivers

Prof. Dr. Niels Schillewaert, Managing Partner, Head of the InSites’ ForwaR&D Lab

11.30 – 11.40: And what about Nethnography on HCP data?

Tapping into HCP conversations for Nethnographic analyses

Magali Geens, Research Director Health, InSites Consulting

11.40 – 12.05 : Traditional online HCP research: a real-life case

An AstraZeneca prescription and forecasting study

Sarah Mertens, Customer Insight Director, Intern. Marketing Organisation, AstraZeneca

Carl Vandeloo, Research Manager Health, InSites Consulting

12.05 – 12.20 : QUESTIONS before drinks & sandwiches

20

10

Global Health Study 2010 How to engage in the conversation with empowered patients?

Magali GeensResearch Director Health, InSites Consulting

Carl VandelooResearch Manager Health, InSites Consulting

June 2010

20

10


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

Philosophy

Conversation

Advertising

Brand

Conversation

Activation

Brand

Philosophy


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

7

Health has many stakeholders

and because of different factors,

a sole focus on the HCPbecomes intolerable in the future


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

8

Part of the focus should

shift towards patientsas they are stepping forward and

entering the conversationabout their health


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

9

How can we

activatethis empowered patient?


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g2

01

0

Health Study 2010STUDY in 14 COUNTRIES WORLDWIDE

Summary:

5.777 consumers (18+), representative total country population.Data collected on proprietary research panels from InSites Consulting, field in April 2010.

.


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

2010 Edition – GlobalHow to engage in the conversation with empowered patients?2

01

0

The internet: an important source for today's patients.

Connected patients ARE conversating!

How can the industry activate the empowered patient?

1

2

3


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g2

01

0




1

2

3


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

The patient action flow – Health Study 2009

Waited for a while

Looked for information

General Practitioner

Pharmacy

General Practitioner

Special Practitioner

Something Else

Q : What were the consecutive actions you undertook after you discovered you suffered from your disorder?

N Europe = 2841 / Filter = Patients suffering from at least one disorder

20

09


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

72%

Users

87%

82%

74%

97%

95%

79%

70%

69%

79%

80%

83%2

01

0

already used the internet to look for information on health related topics(this is 50% when corrected to the offline population)

United States 83%

Brazil 93%

Australia 79%

China 93%


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

Information searchHow often do patients look for information about medical-related topics on the internet?2

01

0

In Europe, 77% already used

the internet to look for health info.

Which is a slight increase versus 2008 (75%).

15Health Study 2010 | How to engage in the conversation with empowered patients | © InSites Consulting, 2010.


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

43%even looks for

online health info

every month

28% in Western Europe

72% in Asia!!!

Monthly Less than monthly

38%

47%

47%

45%

43%

38%

40%

42%

Male

Female

18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65+

62%

53%

53%

55%

57%

62%

60%

58%

Male

Female

18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65+

16


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

55%

33%

28%

24%

23%

15%

12%

11%

8%

7%

6%

4%

4%

2%

3%

10%

A general practitioner

A specialist

Family

Friends / acquaintances

Internet

A pharmacist

Health encyclopaedia (book)

Magazines

(A) health article(s) I collected

Newspapers

Fellow patients

Library

(A) patient folder(s) I collected

Patient organisations

Other

I did not look for information on my disease (yet)

Information search about YOUR DISORDER

N total = 4327 / Filter = If at least one disorder.

23%25%

7%

* Remark: the data were collected via an online

panel survey. The total use of the internet by

patients was 40% in the sample. To avoid over-

estimation of the internet usage by patients

(because the internet penetration in the sample

was 100%), the internet usage was corrected

based on the internet penetration in Europe.

(Source = www.internetworldstats.com)

20

10

59%

35%

Q: Where did you already inform yourself about your disorder?


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

N total = min 30 / Filter = % within people with that disorder

39%

37%

33%

31%

30%

29%

29%

29%

29%

27%

26%

25%

25%

24%

24%

24%

24%

24%

24%

23%

22%

22%

21%

21%

21%

20%

19%

19%

19%

19%

17%

16%

Hairloss

Menopause symptoms

Arthritis

Bladder infection

Libido impairment

Erectile dysfunction

Obesity

Depression

Heart problems

Stress

Anxiety

Fungal infection

Sleep disorder

High blood pressure

Influenza

Migraine

Stomach problems

Warts

Allergy

Chronic pain

High cholesterol

Bronchial infection

Diabetes

Sinusitis

Gastroesophageal reflux disease

Itch

Muscle ache

Intestinal problem

Herpes labialis

Headache

Heartburn

Asthma

% of patients with disorder ... who

looked for online info on that disorderPatients with the more COMMON DISORDERS

use the Internet MOST

HairlossMenopause

Arthritis

Bladder infection

Libido impairment

Erectile dysfunction

Obesity

Depression

Hearth problems


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

People consulting the

INTERNET about their

disorder most often rely on….


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g2

01

0

Search engines!.

95%1

Belgium

Germany

Spain

Russian

Federation

Netherlands

Switzerland

Italy

United States

Australia

France

United Kingdom

Romania

Brazil

China

Country level

94%

94%

89%

95%

96%

95%

97%

97%

96%

97%

81%

97%

95%

93%


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

No sponsored links bought by pharmaceutical companies


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

People consulting the

INTERNET about their

disorder also often rely on….


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g2

01

0

Wikipedia!.

36%2

Belgium

Germany

Spain

Russian

Federation

Netherlands

Switzerland

Italy

United States

Australia

France

United Kingdom

Romania

Brazil

China

Country level

29%

29%

32%

56%

44%

38%

34%

43%

31%

54%

25%

40%

27%

22%


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g2

01

0

Government sites.

3 14%

Belgium

Germany

Spain

Russian

Federation

Netherlands

Switzerland

Italy

United States

Australia

France

United Kingdom

Romania

Brazil

China

Country level

12%

6%

8%

7%

8%

36%

10%

11%

4%

5%

10%

18%

23%

33%


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g2

01

0

Medical portals.

4 11%

Belgium

Germany

Spain

Russian

Federation

Netherlands

Switzerland

Italy

United States

Australia

France

United Kingdom

Romania

Brazil

China

Country level

17%

6%

27%

7%

13%

10%

11%

7%

6%

7%

30%

6%

13%

9%


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g2

01

0

Pharmaceutical sites.

5 10%

Belgium

Germany

Spain

Russian

Federation

Netherlands

Switzerland

Italy

United States

Australia

France

United Kingdom

Romania

Brazil

China

Country level

5%

3%

3%

12%

6%

7%

8%

5%

17%

21%

6%

13%

8%

13%

YOUR SITES

http://www.spmsd.com/index.asp?lang=1


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

Are the sites considered to be trustworthy? 2

01

0

N = 1.739 / Filter : If the internet


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

Consulted websites – regional differences 2

01

0

Q: How did you look up info about your disorder on the Internet? Which websites did you consult?

General search engine

Medical portal broader health focus

Site of a doctor’s practice

Site focused on specific syndrome

Wikipedia

Pharmaceutical company website

Via my social network

Patient community

Patient blog

Government health site

Site of a health centre / hospital

Site of health insurance companies

Blog from a medical advisor

Other

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

10%> Total

10%< Total

95%

36%

14%

11%

10%

9%

5%

4%

4%

3%

2%

1%

1%

2%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%Facebook

MySpace

Twitter

Hi5

Netlog

LinkedIn

Orkut

Xing

Ning

Hyves

Other

None

Total

Western Europe

Eastern Europe

Southern Europe

Northern America

Southern America

Australia

Asia


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g2

01

0

Treatment in general

New types of treatment

Side effects

Symptoms + impact

Co-morbidity

1

2

3

4

5

Patients are most

interested in the following

types of content:

35Health Study 2010 | How to engage in the conversation with empowered patients | © InSites Consulting, 2010.


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

Which content do patients require online?2

01

0


Symptoms of the disorder I suffer

Health care professionals

New treatments

Impact disease on quality of life

Price

Reimbursement

Side effects of medication

Other disorders that typically co-

occur with my disorder

Specific brands of medication

Health insurance companies

Q: To what extent would you be interested in the following content of online information on your disorder?

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%Facebook

MySpace

Twitter

Hi5

Netlog

LinkedIn

Orkut

Xing

Ning

Hyves

Other

None

Total

Western Europe

Eastern Europe

Southern Europe

Northern America

Southern America

Australia

Asia10%> Total

10%< Total

Asia

Eastern Europe

South America

stronger

interest

69%

68%

67%

65%

60%

59%

46%

45%

45%

37%

24%


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

Which content do patients require online?

Q About which topics did you ever read information online about your disorder?In

tere

st

in o

nlin

e c

on

ten

t

Ever read onlineN Europe = 1.739 / Filter : If the internet is used for info on a disorder

20

10

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Q To what extent would you be interested in the following content of online information on your disorder?

In general, patients

tend to find the info

they are looking for...


New treatments

Other disorders that typically co-occur with my disorder

Side effects of medication Symptoms of the disorder I suffer from


Important

content

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Average


Reimbursement

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Average

Less

pertinent


Price Specific brands of medication


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

Conversation

20

10


Connected patients are CONVERSATING!


1

2

3


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

Patients interact outside of the doctor’s cabinet2

01

0

Q: To what extent do you agree with the following statements? (Top 2% agreement)

N = 5.777 / Filter : No filter applied

When I feel something

related to my health, I

discuss this with my

family and/or friends

When my doctor makes a

diagnosis, I check it with

my family and/or friends

When I feel something,

I discuss this with

other patients

When my doctor makes

a diagnosis, I check it

with other patients

49%

31%

14%

12%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%Facebook

MySpace

Twitter

Hi5

Netlog

LinkedIn

Orkut

Xing

Ning

Hyves

Other

None

Total

Western Europe

Eastern Europe

Southern Europe

Northern America

Southern America

Australia

Asia

10%> Total

10%< Total

Half of the

consumers

DISCUSS

about their

healthonline and/or

offline


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g2

01

0

Ever shared online information.

Belgium

Germany

Spain

Russian

Federation

Netherlands

Switzerland

Italy

United States

Australia

France

United Kingdom

Romania

Brazil

China

Country level

12%

15%

27%

17%

16%

17%

24%

37%

32%

52%

19%

45%

15%

76%

30%


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%


01

0

Q: About which topics did you ever share information online concerning your disorder?

N = 1.286 / Filter : If at least one disorder and shared information


Side effects of medication

Reimbursement

New treatments

Other disorders that typically co-

occur with my disorder

Price



Specific brands of medication


Other

SHARED TOPICS

Symptoms of the disorder I suffer

49%

46%

41%

40%

40%

29%

25%

24%

20%

9%

6%

3%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%Facebook

MySpace

Twitter

Hi5

Netlog

LinkedIn

Orkut

Xing

Ning

Hyves

Other

None

Total

Western Europe

Eastern Europe

Southern Europe

Northern America

Southern America

Australia

Asia10%> Total

10%< Total

Asian patients

share more in

general.

Americans share more info

on prices. Side effects of medication


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g


01

0

Q: Via which of the following channels did you ever share information online about your disorder?

Via a personal site or blog

None of the above

Via movie sharing

networks (YouTube, Daily

motion, Vimeo...)

Via a social online

encyclopedia (Wikipedia)

Via social networks (Hyves,

Facebook, Netlog,

MySpace…)

Other

Via online fora/discussion

boards/communities 14%

13%

9%

7%

4%

2%

70%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%Facebook

MySpace

Twitter

Hi5

Netlog

LinkedIn

Orkut

Xing

Ning

Hyves

Other

None

Total

Western Europe

Eastern Europe

Southern Europe

Northern America

Southern America

Australia

Asia10%> Total

10%< Total

In Asiapeople

share more.

They also

use

more channels.

N = 1.286 / Filter : If at least one disorder and shared information


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

N Global = 2065 / Filter = If user

Asian and Western European users are each others’

opposites when looking at their online behaviour!

79% of West European people are more open in person vs. online,

which is only the case amongst 45% of Asian people.

20

10

(c) InSites Consulting, Social network study 2010 : freely available on request!


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

of online patients is active on social networks62%

72%

Users

68%

68%70%

57%

56%

68%

61%

59%

64%

52%

N = 4.327 / Filter : If at least one disorder

United States 68%

Brazil 77%

Australia 61%

China 45%

20

10


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

16%

12%

6%

Type of friends patients have online2

01

0

Q: Which of the following friends are present in your online social network?

N = 2.690 / Filter : If at least one disorder and member of a social network

People with the same

disorder that I have,

that I know from

the real world and I

have a lot of contact

with in my offline life



that I do not know

from the real

world



and that I met offline,

but I don’t have a lot

of contact with in my

offline life

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%Facebook

MySpace

Twitter

Hi5

Netlog

LinkedIn

Orkut

Xing

Ning

Hyves

Other

None

Total

Western Europe

Eastern Europe

Southern Europe

Northern America

Southern America

Australia

Asia10%> Total

10%< Total

16% of social

network users is

connected with

fellow patients they knowfrom real life.

12% connects with

patients they do not know.


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

0%

5%

10%

15%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Average

Popular social networks to share information about diseasesQ On which of the following social networks did you read / share information about your disease?

Sh

are

in

form

ati

on

Read informationN = 2.690 / Filter : If at least one disorder and member of a social network

20

10

Average

Facebook, and to a lesser

extent Twitter, MySpace and

Windows Live Spaces are the

most common networks to

read/share info on diseases,

since they are also most

commonly used in general.


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g2

01

0


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

50


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

3%

14%

9%

10%

4%

6%

9%

9%

7%

4%

4%

53%

33%

35%

31%

28%

20%

14%

13%

12%

10%

1%

16%

33%

14%

23%

19%

31%

17%

36%

29%

28%

28%

18%

5%

13%

22%

20%

30%

25%

35%

33%

28%

27%

9%

15%

29%

14%

29%

13%

35%

7%

19%

30%

41%

Friendfeed

Flickr

LinkedIn

XING

Hyves

MySpace

Netlog

Twitter

Windows Live Spaces

Facebook

Other

Very often Regularly Now and then Rarely Hardly ever

Frequency of sharing information via social networks2

01

0

Q: How often do you share information about your disease on the following social networks?

N = 2.690 / Filter : If at least one disorder and member of a social network

Regularly

56%

47%

44%

41%

32%

26%

14%

5%

23%

22%

19%

n = 30

n = 20

n = 21

n = 22

n = 25

n = 100

n = 54

n = 111

n = 112

n = 354

n = 86


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

of online patients read about their disease on communities33%

72%

Users

34%

31%14%

36%

49%

31%

17%

25%

24%

25%


United States 34%

Brazil 47%

Australia 26%

China 59%

20

10


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

54


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g2

01

0


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

Community membership and participation2

01

0


A community organized by a

pharmaceutical company

A community organized by a

patient organization

A community organized by

fellow patients

Communities organized by the

government

Communities of which I

do not know the organizer

Other communities

Share

Q: Are you member of any of the following communities on your disorder?

Q: On which of the following communities did you read information about your disorder?

Q: On which of the following communities did you share information about your disorder?

3% 9% 5%

4% 8% 6%

3% 9% 7%

4% 7% 4%

3% 13% 8%

1% 2% 1%

Member Read

&

&

&

&

&

&


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

49%

35%

33%

21%

Interest in different community types2

01

0


Q: To what extent would you be interested in the following type of communities for patients of your disorder?

A community where you can

ask the opinion of a

health care

professional

A community where you

can ask the opinion of

pharmaceutical

companies

A community with

testimonials of

patients

A community where

patients can become

friends

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%Facebook

MySpace

Twitter

Hi5

Netlog

LinkedIn

Orkut

Xing

Ning

Hyves

Other

None

Total

Western Europe

Eastern Europe

Southern Europe

Northern America

Southern America

Australia

Asia10%> Total

10%< Total

An advisory

community by HCPs and

pharmaceutical

companies

clearly has

potential!!!


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

Conversation

20

10

The internet: an important source for today's patient!


How can the industry ACTIVATE the empowered patient?

1

2

3


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

According to consumers,

pharmaceutical

companies should….


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g2

01

0


1 Provide info in cabinet.

56%

83%

73%

57%

57%

57%

56%

55%

54%

52%

51%

48%

48%

46%

39%

Romania

Russian Federation

Brazil

Belgium

Netherlands

Australia

United States

Italy

United Kingdom

Germany

Switzerland

France

Spain

China

Sig. Difference between countries (95%)


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g


20

10 Provide expert guidance

on a website.

52%


2


76%

74%

66%

58%

55%

55%

53%

49%

48%

47%

45%

44%

33%

31%

Romania

Russian Federation

China

Italy

Germany

Brazil

Spain

United States

Switzerland

France

Australia

United Kingdom

Belgium

Netherlands



Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

76%

68%

65%

60%

54%

53%

53%

49%

47%

46%

37%

37%

34%

33%

Romania

Brazil

Russian Federation

China

Italy

Switzerland

Germany

United States

France

Spain

United Kingdom

Belgium

Australia

Netherlands


51%Be in constant dialogue

with patients.

20

10

20

10

3



Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

How can the industry engage the empowered patient?The role of the industry2

01

0


4Make discussions about

medication possible on their site

49%

Beware: adverse event reporting necessary

72%

67%

59%

56%

55%

46%

46%

46%

44%

44%

44%

41%

35%

28%

Romania

Russian Federation

Brazil

China

United States

France

United Kingdom

Germany

Switzerland

Spain

Australia

Italy

Netherlands

Belgium



Site

s C

on

su

ltin

gQ: If you consider the information you have read/already read online, how would you describe the tone of voice of this information?

The majority of online conversations is

positive, especially when they are about

medication

In general

On medication

19%

18%

40%

50%

Negative Positive


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

Measuring the temperature of online conversations2

01

0


Q: If you had a serious complaint about a pharmaceutical drug or treatment for your

disorder, how often would you share this information on the Internet?

5%

10%

22%

19%

43%

Always

Often

From time to time

Hardly ever

Never

5%

10%

22%

19%

43%

Always

Often

From time to time

Hardly ever

Never

Frequency sharing

complaint

(‘Only’) 5% has the intention

to always to share complaints

about treatments/drugs online.


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

How can the industry engage the empowered patient?The role of the industry2

01

0


45%

Share info on medication in social

encyclopedia5

68%

65%

55%

53%

48%

47%

42%

41%

40%

35%

35%

35%

35%

34%

Romania

Russian Federation

Brazil

China

Germany

Switzerland

Italy

United States

Netherlands

United Kingdom

Spain

France

Australia

Belgium



Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

Remember: 2nd most frequented source for health related information!

Remember: a neutral point of view. Advocate no single point of view!


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

How can the industry activate the empowered patient?2

01

0

N = 5.777 / Filter : No filter applied10%> Total10%< Total

56%

52%

51%

49%

45%

38%

32%

29%

28%

25%

24%

22%

19%

17%

16%

Provide patient info in the doctor’s office/ pharmacy

Possibility to discuss medication on their website

Make YouTube movies on the disorder / product usage

Possibility to get guidance from an expert

Share info about their brands in social encyclopedia

Sponsor websites of patient organisations

Sell their drugs to patients online

Be in dialogue with patients

Be involved in discussions on disorders & products

on social media

Have a patient page where patients can become friends

Advertise about products in newspapers/magazines

Advertise about their products on television

Make a Facebook page

Share press releases and other relevant info on Twitter

Advertise about their products on the radio

Q: Pharmaceutical companies are one of the possible information sources for patients.

To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Pharmaceutical companies should…

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%Facebook

MySpace

Twitter

Hi5

Netlog

LinkedIn

Orkut

Xing

Ning

Hyves

Other

None

Total

Western Europe

Eastern Europe

Southern Europe

Northern America

Southern America

Australia

Asia


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

How can the industry engage the empowered patient?Take the industry forward2

01

0


Some options to take the

health industry

48% is interested in a doctor

who can be consulted online

Taking the industry

73


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

How can the industry engage the empowered patient?Take the industry forward2

01

0


Some options to take the

health industry

48% is interested in a doctor

who can be consulted online

38% wants less paperwork:

prescriptions automatically shipped

34% wants to buy products in

online pharmacies

27% wants automatic SMS

reminders for doctor appointments

22% wants automatic SMS

reminders for medication intake

Taking the industry

75


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

77

Patients ARE engaged and conversating

and they are clearly ready to be

activatedonline by HCPs and the broader industry!


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g2

00

9

Using Social Media Nethnography in Health Research Tapping into the conversations of connected patients and caregivers

Prof. Dr. Niels Schillewaert

Managing Partner InSites Consulting

Director ForwaR&D Lab

June 2010

20

10

80InSites Consulting ForwaR&D Lab© I

nS

ites

Co

nsu

ltin

g

limitations of interview based techniques


nS

ites

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Would not we want to do this?

Life Caching

Social Media Nethnography


nS

ites

Co

nsu

ltin

g

interviewing bias

consumer insights

contextual information

emotions

Long time periods


nS

ites

Co

nsu

ltin

g

81.8611/01/2007 – 01/06/2009


nS

ites

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Longevity

Health problems

Quality of Life

Daily life impact

Elderly diseases discussed online


nS

ites

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Diseases associated with getting olderPsychological and physical problems

Psychological problems

Physical problems

Other topics

62%

11% 8% 19%


nS

ites

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Major diseases when getting older? Top 20 discussed diseases

5627

4733

4452

3584

3477

2684

2614

2094

1749

1732

1685

1608

978

970

909

905

895

859

793

737

736

706

622

616

522

dementia

cardiovascular

overweight

vision loss

alzheimer

stress

memory loss

emotional dysregulation mood

cancer

head problem

foot toe ankle

gastro

mobility issues

anxiety

muscle problems

lung problems

diabetes

incontinence

inflammation

psychotic

parkinson

joints arthritis

skeleton

skin issues

sleep problems

physical

psychological


nS

ites

Co

nsu

ltin

g

People tend to discuss more about lethal diseases

Some exceptions- Cancer- Lung problems

0,45 correlation


nS

ites

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Buzz volume

Sen

tim

ete

r

Eating

Professional

Housing

Payment

Guilt

Identity

Telephone call

Treatment

Diagnosis

Transport

Dog

Personal care Law

Clothes

Active

FriendsDecision

Safety

Religion

Emotions aboutaging concerns across disease states

Diseases

» Finding right treatment not easy

» Never ending


nS

ites

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Buzz volume

Sen

tim

ete

r

Legal

Ambulance

Nurse

Specialist

Hospice

Caregivers

Pharmacists

Hospital

Dentist

Nursing home

GP

Assisted living

Paying organisation

Emotions abouthealth care professionals


nS

ites

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Drugs mentioned

No drugs mentioned

Alzheimer DrugsShare of voice

N = 305

N = 3477

F = Posts about Alzheimer

9%91%

49%

13%

11%

11%

10%

9%

8%

4%

3%

3%

aricept

reminyl

namenda

paxil

risperdal

exelon

seroquel

zyprexa

prozac

coumadin


nS

ites

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Alzheimer DrugsConsideration set

N = 305

F = Posts about Alzheimer &

Drugs

34%

36%

30%

1 brand

2 brands

3 or more brands

14% Risperdal

13% Seroquel

10% Paxil

72% Aricept

9% Namenda

5% Reminyl

77% Aricept

37% Reminyl

27% Namenda

0% Aricept

0% Namenda

0% Reminyl!


nS

ites

Co

nsu

ltin

g

0

30

50

70

90

20

40

60

80

100

0

30

50

70

90

20

40

60

80

100

0

30

50

70

90

20

40

60

80

100

All posts

60°

Posts about

AH Drugs

N=81861

Posts about

Aricept

Posts about

Namenda

Posts about

Reminyl

0

30

50

70

90

20

40

60

80

100

0

30

50

70

90

20

40

60

80

100

24°

N=878

Alzheimer DrugsSentimeter

9°

N=644 N=235 N=193

12° 66°

Comparison with

sentiment across

brands

Significantly higher

No significant difference

Significantly lower


nS

ites

Co

nsu

ltin

g

0

30

50

70

90

20

40

60

80

100

0

30

50

70

90

20

40

60

80

100

0

30

50

70

90

20

40

60

80

100

All posts

60°

Posts about

AH Drugs

N=81861

Posts about

Aricept

Posts about

Namenda

Posts about

Reminyl

0

30

50

70

90

20

40

60

80

100

0

30

50

70

90

20

40

60

80

100

24°

N=878

9°

N=644 N=235 N=193

12° 66°

Why are posts for Reminyl so positive?

Comparison with

sentiment across

brands

Significantly higher

No significant difference

Significantly lower



nS

ites

Co

nsu

ltin

g

0

30

50

70

90

20

40

60

80

100

Posts about

Reminyl

N=193

66°

youngest hopeful

in action when dominant brands lost efficacy

later stages of Alzheimer disease

Dementia is an umbrella word for different types of dementia,as there are 50 or more diseases that can cause

dementia.Alzheimer's is just one of them.Aricept is a good medication,I was on it 4 years,then when It stopped

working well,I started taking Reminyl.I've been on it 3 yrs.Yes I have Alzheimer's,but I still have a life (…)

we've been through all

the AD meds (Aricept,

Exelon) she's now taking

Reminyl

Mom had a runny nose the

entire time she was taking

Aricept. (…) I'm hoping

Reminyl does not have this

side effect.

Aricept made a wonderful difference in the

quality of life for my Mom. However, for

some people it does not help at all. The

newest AD med to be approved by the

FDA is Reminyl. Ask her doc if he/she

thinks this is an option for your Mom. For

information on the drug take a look at this

web site. Reminyl

This study suggests that Reminyl may provide long-term benefits in

treating AD by delaying symptom progression observed over the course

of three years.


Why are posts for Reminyl so positive?


nS

ites

Co

nsu

ltin

g


-2,0

-1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2005(1-6)

2005(7-12)

2006(1-6)

2006(7-12)

2007(1-6)

2007(7-12)

2008(1-6)

2008(7-12)

2009(1-6)

-2,0

-1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2005(1-6)

2005(7-12)

2006(1-6)

2006(7-12)

2007(1-6)

2007(7-12)

2008(1-6)

2008(7-12)

2009(1-6)

Alzheimer

Alzheimer Drugs

Absolutely! ...not that my mom has ever been on

Aricept, nor has she had the same compulsions

as your MIL. But her behaviors can be more than

maddening and many times are scary and

dangerous, as well.

Uh ya know I may have spoke too soon... I may be

mistaken but I think the Aricept may be working

She is on Aricept now but this is only because I

believed she had a need for it due to obsessive

behaviors accompanied by self harm

I have her on Aricept right now but I also want to

make clear it was not for the purpose of trying to

stop the disease it was to try and quell the

destructive behaviors.


nS

ites

Co

nsu

ltin

g


Hun if this is a different behavior than before Aricept

(now) then I would look to that drug as the cause.

-2,0

-1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2005(1-6)

2005(7-12)

2006(1-6)

2006(7-12)

2007(1-6)

2007(7-12)

2008(1-6)

2008(7-12)

2009(1-6)

Alzheimer

Alzheimer Drugs

-2,0

-1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2005(1-6)

2005(7-12)

2006(1-6)

2006(7-12)

2007(1-6)

2007(7-12)

2008(1-6)

2008(7-12)

2009(1-6)

I'm getting quite sick of reading my patients charts to find

they are on Aricept and its clearly NOT working on them. I

don't get this drug the behaviors it produces is like nothing

else I’ve seen (…)

Aricept worked for 2 years for my mother and

hubby. The doctor at the VA would not consider

Namenda. He thought is was over rated for one.

The other was he feared it may enhance the

symptoms of bad behavior.

Needless to say, we took him off after the 5th dose.

It was like night and day different. He was hard to

get along with before and after Aricept, but with it he

was impossible.


nS

ites

Co

nsu

ltin

g

39.8121/06/2008 – 31/10/2008


nS

ites

Co

nsu

ltin

g

30 information segmentsbottom-up segmentation

Seizures

Health care

Children

Awareness &

knowledgeTreatment

Helpful

Diagnosis

Problem

night

Difficult

Food & drinks

Satisfaction

School

Dosage

Budget

Control

Driving

Side effects

Husband

Brand A

Brand B

normal behaviour

Job

Headache

Confused

Brand C

Having pain

Wishes for thefuture

ImportantScared


nS

ites

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Natural & medical languageabout seizures

25%


nS

ites

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Natural explanations seizure types

PETIT MAL

Also called ‘absence’People just stand and stare vacantlyMy mind was wandering, blank, in a dazeWhen asked to speak, would talk then just goblank and lose my entire train of thought and having no idea what I had impliedMy eyes would blink rapidly and then I would go blank as if I were daydreaming and my mindwould be shot


nS

ites

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Societal concerns around Epilepsy

Society Epileptic unit = CONTROL SEIZURES

Epilepsy patient

Caregiver (mainly family)

succesful

control

Unsuccesful

controlDecrease in social life

Adapt family activities

Lose job

Can no longer be alone

Confidence

Lack of knowledge

Limited

understanding

STIGMA

EMBARRASMENT


nS

ites

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Brands : A matter of sentiment

0

30

50

70

90

20

40

60

80

100

0

30

50

70

90

20

40

60

80

100

0

30

50

70

90

20

40

60

80

100

0

30

50

70

90

20

40

60

80

100

0

30

50

70

90

20

40

60

80

100

Brand A Brand B Brand C Brand D Brand E

0

30

50

70

90

20

40

60

80

100

0

30

50

70

90

20

40

60

80

100

0

30

50

70

90

20

40

60

80

100

0

30

50

70

90

20

40

60

80

100

0

30

50

70

90

20

40

60

80

100

Brand F Brand G Brand H Brand I Brand J

59 39 49 38 20

33 21 22 65 90


nS

ites

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Brand A : sentimeter

0

30

50

70

90

20

40

60

80

100

Brand A

Brand A has been a fabulous

med for my daughter. She has

not experienced any negative

side effects.

I'm laughing more easily and it's

easier to be happy again. AnD

it's not eating up my memory like

the Brand H. To be honest, at

this point I think the Brand A is a

LOT better than Brand H

I've been on Brand A

for about a year and

have only had once

seizure since. Side

effects that I have are

occasional dizzyness,

shakiness, and spotted

vision. But other than

that, I'm pretty happy. I

was started out on

Brand B and that didn't

work

Brand A helped me to stop having the weird deju vu feeling I would have in my

head. I dont black out so I would have these weird feelings like I had been in

this place before but when I started taking Brand A it really helped those weird

feeling in my head to go away.

Positive comments about Brand A are mainly related to the

fact that the medication works for patients

http://www.epilepsynse.org.uk/Forum/viewtopic.php?

f=3&t=17307&sid=0eb3257cbd1edbe84dddd0f775fc3

8f1

n = 1460

Brand A

n = 39812

Total sample

n = 4649

Brand

59°


nS

ites

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Hormones, birth control, pregnancy & Brand A

Is Brand A safe during

pregnancy?

From the research that I have done on

pregnancy and seizures, I found Brand

B and Brand A to be listed as the safe

meds to be on.

He told me that it was pretty safe, but that

there was not enough participation in

research for it to be approved to be taken

during pregnancy by the FDA. If you do

decide to get pregnant and still stay on

Brand A I recommend that you join the

pregnancy registry. Here is the information:

… . The website is http://www.Brand

A.com/pc/livin...h_epilepsy/women2.asp

Hormones Seizures Brand A controls

seizures

Control

unsuccessfulAdd birth

control

Seizures

successful

controlled

Wish to start a

family

Birth control

is barrier

Brand A limits

effects birth

control

not clear when

ovulating

Successful

pregnancy

94% of the conversations about hormones & Brand A are related to Pregnancy

http://www.keppra.com/pc/livin...h_epilepsy/women2.asp







nS

ites

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Insight generationthemes & keywordshypotheses & blind spots

Brand analysesvolumesentimentassociationsstrengths & weaknesses

Advertising impacttrack campaign reach, sentiment, brand fit

Productpost hoc (launch) performance


nS

ites

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Natural & medical languageabout disease

Learn what consumers tell each other

Optimize online marketing strategy

Find hidden patterns –blind spots


nS

ites

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Answers to questions you did not ask

Answers without asking questions


nS

ites

Co

nsu

ltin

g

1.Information needs & interviewingself-generation new patient insightsactual & contextual information natural language & emotionsreduced interviewing bias

2.Samplingpractical significancelong periods of time

3. field & analysisunit of analysisqual – quantreporting styleconnection between client & agency


nS

ites

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Can you hide the elephant?

For SMN unclear rules MR rules“real” patient + reporter + event + MAH’s brand

ProcessTrainingReport AE < 24 hrsAnalyze verbatims until max AE reached

Do not be afraidPharmacovigilance group capacity limitNot all posts read


nS

ites

Co

nsu

ltin

g

0.2%7%

What can you expect?

It depends ...– platform– public– product– theme


nS

ites

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Lessons learned & limitations

Social Media Nethnography is not a short cutAnalyse and audit, then trackTime investment for client and agency required through iterative processAE reporting

It is still developingAER rulesLanguage & dictionariesLimited profile informationUpfront feasibility check for critical mass

We still need to ask questionsOnly the question follows the answers – a bit like JeopardyComplementary to interview based research

AstraZeneca prescription forecasting studySummary Pan-EU Physician Research

Sarah Mertens

Customer Insight Director

International Marketing organisation AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals

June 2010

20

10


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

Online HCP research


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

Internet surveysamong

HCPs

No deviation in results from other methods

Internet access HCPs above 90% and more

Most preferred method ((c) EphMRA, 2006!)


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

Internet surveys among HCPsOn research panels AND on customer databases

http://images.google.be/imgres?imgurl=http://www.foviance.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/main_astra-zeneca.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.foviance.com/case-studies/astrazeneca/&usg=__OmHxo0npzohp42WNRbWJ4uQwapc=&h=300&w=691&sz=40&hl=nl&start=18&um=1&tbnid=jAoHNLyrbjBYpM:&tbnh=60&tbnw=139&prev=/images?q=astra+zeneca+logo&hl=nl&sa=N&um=1


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g



Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

Strict verification of HCP identity

Clear agreements (timing / reimbursement)

Devoted time invested

Strict quality control possible (fill-out time)

In their natural setting

At their own convenience

No interviewer bias / differences

Strict screening = useful participation

Automated filtering = relevant questions

Integration of (audio-)visual stimuli



Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

Methodology and objectives


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

MethodologyOnline survey

A large Pan-European study

Online survey

Recruitment on a large independent physician panel

In total 476 specialists participated

The study was done in a blinded way (unbranded)



Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

Key study objectivesPrescription mapping and forecasting

Product b

Indication 1

Product b

Indication 2, 3

Year -7 Year -2 Year 0

Product a

Indication 1, 2, 3

Year +0.5

Indication 1, 2, 3

Product a

Product b

Rx known Rx known Rx known Rx known Rx ?

Year > +1 …

Context



Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

Key study objectivesPrescription mapping and forecasting

Quantify the current prescription behaviour and

future switch intention among specialists upon further

market introduction of product a by AstraZeneca.

Understand the drivers & barriers to switch from

current treatments – including product b by AstraZeneca,

which approaches end of patent – to product a.



Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

Current self-reported prescription behaviour

Based on report by the physicians: Please think of the last 11 prescriptions made

for indication... = easy to fill out

Research population should be close match with targeted prescription population;

good agreement on screener questions is required !

Up-to-date prescription data (if available to the company) can be used to reweight

self-reported prescription and future intended prescription


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

25%

17%

16%

5%

12%

25%

Sero

quel X

R

Sero

quel IR

Zyp

rexa

Ris

perd

al

Abilify

Oth

er p

roducts

15%

13%

31%

12%

9%

19%

Sero

quel X

R

Sero

quel IR

Zyp

rexa

Ris

perd

al

Abilify

Oth

er p

roducts

13%

10%

24%

21%

14%

18%

Sero

quel X

R

Sero

quel IR

Zyp

rexa

Ris

perd

al

Abilify

Oth

er p

roducts

Self-reported prescription sharesDistribution across treatments

N = 476 / F = No filter applied

Indication 1 Indication 2 Indication 3

Q : Please think about the last 11 times that you prescribed a product for Indication 1 / Indication 2 / Indication 3. Can you please indicate for each

of the following products how many of the 11 times you have used each of the following products?

28%

7%

20%

17%

13%

16%

Seroquel XR

Seroquel IR

Zyprexa

Risperdal

Abilify

Other products

Product a

Product b

Product cProduct dProduct e

Other

28%

7%

20%

17%

13%

16%

Seroquel XR

Seroquel IR

Zyprexa

Risperdal

Abilify

Other products

Product a

Product b


Other

28%

7%

20%

17%

13%

16%

Seroquel XR

Seroquel IR

Zyprexa

Risperdal

Abilify

Other products

Product a

Product b


Other



Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

13% 10%15%

10%16% 15%

10%8%

14%

7%

9%6%

24%

24%

23%

21%

25% 33%

21%29%

16%

25%

21% 17%

14%18%

12%15%

13%11%

18%12%

20% 21%16%

20%

Self-reported prescription sharesDistribution across treatments

N (Total) = 476; N (Belgium) = 100; N (Germany)= 102; N (Spain) = 100; N (Italy) = 100; N (Sweden) = 74 / F = No filter applied

Indication 1

Total

23%

Q : Please think about the last 11 times that you prescribed a product for Indication 1. Can you please indicate for each of the following products how

many of the 11 times you have used each of the following products?

Product a+b

EU average

28%

7%

20%

17%

13%

16%

Seroquel XR

Seroquel IR

Zyprexa

Risperdal

Abilify

Other products

Product a

Product b


Other



Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

Intended prescription behaviour

Neutral introduction of new product is required, focus on key product

characteristics

Research setting = informed setting (all participants have access to the same

product information)

For extrapolation to real market situation: if only x% of the target group is informed

about / has access to the new product, research data have to be adjusted


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

27%

7%

20%

17%

13%

15%

Sero

quel X

R

Sero

quel IR

Zyp

rexa

Ris

perd

al

Abilify

Oth

er p

roducts

Intended shift in prescription shareIndication 1

N = 476 / F = No filter applied

Current prescriptions

34%

Q : Please think about the last 11 times that you prescribed a product for Indication 1. Can you please indicate for each of the following products

how many of the 11 times you have used each of the following products?Q : Please think now about the next 11 times that you will prescribe a product for Indication 1. Can you please indicate for each of the following

products how many of the 11 times you intend

Intended prescriptions

13%

10%

24%

21%

14%

18%

Sero

quel X

R

Sero

quel IR

Zyp

rexa

Ris

perd

al

Abilify

Oth

er p

roducts

23%28%

7%

20%

17%

13%

16%

Seroquel XR

Seroquel IR

Zyprexa

Risperdal

Abilify

Other products

Product a

Product b


Other



Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

Intended shift in prescription shareIndication 1

1%

27%

11%

29%

6%

22%

6%

32%

9%

26%17%

6%

18%

9%

12%

6%

20%

7%

12%

7%24%

20%23%

19%

21%

20% 25%

20%

33%

29%

29%

22%16%

13%

25%

23%21%

16%

17%

11%

18%16%

12% 12%15%

14% 13%12%

11%10%

12% 9%

20% 19% 21%16% 16% 12%

20% 17%

N(total) = 476; N(Belgium) = 100; N(Germany) = 102; N(Spain) = 100; N(Italy) = 100; N(Sweden) = 74 / F = No filter applied

27%

7%

20%

17%

13%

15%

Sero

quel X

R

Sero

quel IR

Zyp

rexa

Ris

perdal

Abilify

Oth

er p

roducts

Q : Please think about the last 11 times that you prescribed a product for Indication 1. Can you please indicate for each of the following products

how many of the 11 times you have used each of the following products?Q : Please think now about the next 11 times that you will prescribe a product for Indication 1. Can you please indicate for each of the following

products how many of the 11 times you intend

13%

10%

34%10%

8% 14%

Current prescription shares

33% 38%15%

10%

7%

28% 16%

9%

39%15%

6%

33%

28%

7%

20%

17%

13%

16%

Seroquel XR

Seroquel IR

Zyprexa

Risperdal

Abilify

Other products

Product a

Product b


Other



Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

Intended shift in prescription shareIntention to switch to Product a in Indication 1

Product a+b =

23%of total prescription share

in Indication 1

Current prescriptions

Product a

Product b

Intended prescriptions

Product a+b =

34%of total prescription share

in Indication 1

Product a

Product a

Product b

Product c

Product d

Product e

Other products

38%

7%

11%

12%

3%

9%

21%

48%

8.5%

14%

15%

3.5%

11%

Product b

57%

43%

= 27% of total

prescriptions

= 7% of total

prescriptions

= 13% of total

prescriptions

= 10% of total

prescriptions

If we consider the future prescription

intention for Product a, where will the

prescriptions then come from?

10

0%

of

futu

reP

rod

uc

ta

pre

sc

riptio

ns

The total prescription share of Product a it expected to increase for Indication 1, even if all

the remaining Product b prescriptions – the ones that are not converted into Product a –

would be lost to generics.

(13% a / 10% b) (27% a / 7% b)



Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

Intended shift in prescription shareDrivers and barriers to switch in Indication 1

Current prescriptions Intended prescriptions

57%

43%

Barriers to switch to product a

Drivers to switch to product a

Better compliance

Good tolerability profile

Good symptom control

Effective

...

Change current habits

Doubts on efficacy

Metabolic effects

Costs

Good reaction on product b

...

Product a

Product b

Product a

Product b



Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

Are the results really what we can expect?

Remember: perfect information and availability of the product is the starting point; if

this will not be (immediately) the case in the market, we should balance the data

But what about the research participants? Maybe they are more open to change

compared to the overall physician population?

And can we really compare the results of different markets? Maybe in certain

countries they are more likely to be give positive answers?

We need to rule out any differences that might occur naturally between individuals

and between cultures.


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

Intended shift in prescription shareA positive openness to switch to Product a

A priory switching intention: assuming a new product was available with

specifications considered appropriate by the specialists, 7 in 10 specialists reports an

openness to switch patients to it.

Switching intention for Product a: if we ask the same question for Product a (i.e.

future intention to prescribe it), we see that 7.5 in 10 specialists reports an openness

to switch patients to it and/or the intention to continue prescribing Product a to patients

who are already on it.

Switch Potential Index:

SPI =

Switching intention for a specific product – A Priori switching intention

A Priori switching intention



Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

Intended shift in prescription shareDifferences in SPI across markets and indications

A positive SPI score means that specialists are more open to switch to Product

a compared to ‘a new product’ introduced in the category that would live up to their

expectations. Below an overview of the SPI scores is given:

From the overview we can conclude that German and Swedish specialists

currently display a bigger openness to switch to / stick to Product acompared to their colleagues in the other countries.

Indication 1

Indication 2

Indication 3

-0.03

-0.07

0.07

0.48

0.37

0.39

-0.13

-0.01

-0.02

-0.02

-0.07

0.14

0.11

0.06

0.11



Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

How do we use the insights in practice?


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

From market insights to practiceWhat is done with findings?

Intermediate discussion of the results with business intelligence

Presentation of the findings to the business / brand teams

Discussion of the findings and challenging data with other insights available

Internal presentation round of relevant insights by the business / brand teams

Match results with market reality over time

Repeat measure after x time for benchmarking / keeping the finger on the pulse



Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

Questions?


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g


Site

s C

on

su

ltin

g

139

Let’s have a bite

Health smartees 2010

Business

Transcript of Health smartees 2010