PUBLICATION DATE: FRIDAY, AUGUST 7th, 2020

~ Contact: Alex Wyke ~ Tel: +44-(0)7960-855-019 ~ Email: report@patient-view.com

This is the 5th edition of 'The Corporate Reputation of Pharma - from the Perspective of Mental-Health Patient Groups'. These 2019 results are drawn from a survey of mental-health patient groups, conducted November 2019 - February 2020.

About the 2019 survey of mental-health patient groups

2019’s 75 respondent mental-health patient groups came from 30 different countries, with the highest representation being from the United States (at 10 mental-health patient groups).
The 75 respondent mental-health patient groups had the following geographic remits: 7% an international remit; 59% a national remit; 20% a regional (within one country); and 15% local.

On the relationships that mental-health patient groups had with pharma, 2019

51% of the 75 mental-health patient groups responding to the 2019 survey worked with at least one pharma company.

The 6 companies included for assessment in the 2019 mental-health Corporate-Reputation' analyses (in alphabetical order):

A note about COVID-19 and the 2019 study’s results

Covid-19 should have a relatively limited impact on many of the results of the PatientView 2019 ‘Corporate-Reputation’ study, because the survey took place (November 2019 to late-February 2020) largely before the crisis became global. However, early announcements about Covid-19 by some pharma companies (during January and February 2020) may have influenced the views of mental-health patient groups responding to the ‘Corporate-Reputation’ survey during those last two months of the survey.

What this report contains

Industry-wide analyses: The 2019 mental-health 'Corporate-Reputation' report examines the issues of importance to mental-health patient groups, including:

• the quality of patient-group relationships with pharma; • levels of industry innovation; and • the provision of high-quality products.

Analyses are reinforced by extensive comments from 2019’s respondent mental-health patient groups [Appendix I], organised according to the country headquarters of the respondent patient groups.

Individual company analyses: The 6 pharma companies are reviewed by 2019’s 75 respondent mental-health patient groups for overall corporate reputation, and for performance at 12 individual indicators of corporate reputation.

The 12 indicators used to measure corporate reputation from a patient perspective

Key industry-wide findings for mental-health patient organsations, 2019

Mental-health patient groups have become increasingly dissatisfied with the pharmaceutical industry. In 2019, as few as 26% of 2019’s 75 respondent mental-health patient groups judged the industry to have an “Excellent” or “Good” corporate reputation that year, ranking the industry 5th out of 9 healthcare sectors. The equivalent 2019 figure from the 1,850 respondent patient groups of all therapy areas was 46%, ranking pharma 1st out of the nine healthcare sectors. Mental-health patient groups have traditionally been more sceptical of pharma than their peers of other therapy areas. However, since 2015 (when PatientView began analysing the views of mental-health patient groups), the differences in perspective between mental-health patient groups and patient groups of other therapy areas seem to have widened [see chart below].

Percentage of respondent patient groups stating that the pharmaceutical industry had an “Excellent” or “Good” corporate reputation, 2015-2019—mental-health patient groups versus patient groups from all therapy areas

Several reasons may explain the more negative views of mental-health patient groups. First and foremost is the fact that the numbers of companies engaged in researching treatments for mental-health conditions has diminished. In 2015, as many as 20 companies were included in the PatientView mental-health analyses; by 2019, the number had dropped to just six companies. The data collated by PatientView, 2015-2019, appear to reflect a growing concern by respondent mental-health patient groups at pharma’s disinvestment in mental-health R&D. In 2019, just 34% of the respondent mental-health patient groups judged the pharma industry “Excellent” or “Good” at providing high-quality products of benefit to patients—significantly down from 2015’s equivalent figure of 73%. Similarly, 26% of 2019’s respondent mental-health patient groups regarded pharma as “Excellent” or “Good” at innovation, compared with 67% in 2015 [see charts below].

Percentage of respondent mental-health patient groups stating that the pharma industry was “Excellent” or “Good” at making high-quality products of value to patients, and at being innovative, 2014-2019

Making high-quality products Being innovative

Mental-health patient groups responding to the 2019 ‘Corporate-Reputation’ survey marked the pharma industry down on its performance at activities of importance to patients, when compared with their peers from other therapy areas. The biggest difference seen was with the quality of the relationships between these patient organisations and the pharmaceutical industry. Just 16% of the respondent mental-health patient groups called the pharma industry “Excellent” or “Good” at patient-group relationships, compared with 42% of respondent patient groups from all therapy areas―a difference of 26% [see chart below].

How the pharma industry performed at various activities of importance to patients: the views of mental-health patient groups, compared with patient groups from all therapy areas, 2019

The key issues raised by 2019’s respondent mental-health patient groups in their written feedback:

A lack of satisfaction with current treatments.
The need for better recognition of treatment side effects—and, ideally, treatments with fewer adverse reactions.
A lack of understanding at R&D level of the treatment needs of patients with a mental-health condition.

The Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA) Halifax-Dartmouth Branch called for:

“More research for better medications to treat severe mental illness.”

The Irish Mental Patients’ Educational and Representative Organisation (IMPERO) stated:

“Well, I think that it is a case of the patient must fit the drug, rather than the drug must fit the patient. We don’t buy the drugs ourselves, but, by the same token, we must take what we are prescribed. The whole question of drugs is outside the mental patient’s control."

According to the Denmark-based Landsforeningen SIND:

“Sikre sig, at bivirkninger af medicinen bliver kommunikeret ud, og at dem omkring patienten tager ansvar for bivirkningerne og evt. får stoppet medicineringen.” (“Make sure that the side effects of the drug are communicated, and that those around the patient take responsibility for the side effects—and, if applicable, ensure that the medication is discontinued.”)

Key company findings, mental health, 2019

6 companies are included in the mental-health analysis of 2019’s ‘Corporate-Reputation’ results. The companies are ranked for their performance at 12 individual indicators of corporate reputation, as judged by respondent mental-health patient groups familiar with the companies.

Despite the negative sentiments expressed by many of 2019's respondent mental-health patient groups, exceptions were made for some of the pharmaceutical companies remaining in the field of mental health.

Janssen was ranked overall 1st out of 6 companies for corporate reputation in 2019 by the 52 respondent mental-health patient groups familiar with it. Janssen was ranked 1st for 9 of the 12 individual indicators of corporate reputation. Janssen was also ranked overall 1st for corporate reputation in 2019 out of 3 companies, as judged by its 31 respondent partner mental-health patient groups.

Otsuka was ranked overall 2nd out of 6 companies for corporate reputation in 2019 by the 22 respondent mental-health patient groups familiar with it. Otsuka was ranked overall joint 2nd for corporate reputation in 2019 out of 3 companies, as judged by its 17 respondent partner mental-health patient groups.

Lundbeck was ranked overall 3rd out of 6 companies for corporate reputation in 2019 by the 35 respondent mental-health patient groups familiar with it. Lundbeck was ranked overall joint 2nd for corporate reputation in 2019 out of 3 companies, as judged by its 21 respondent partner mental-health patient groups.

For further information on PatientView's latest publication, ‘The Corporate Reputation of Pharma—from the Perspective of Mental-Heath Patient Groups, 2019’, please use the contact details at the top.

To download the publication's contents, list of tables and charts, and sample materials, please click below:

LINK TO SAMPLE PAGES OF 2019's MENTAL-HEALTH ANALYSIS

~END OF NOTIFICATION~