Patient groups specialising in respiratory conditions are generally positive about the pharmaceurtical industry - but have begun to worry about industry R&D Patient groups specialising in respiratory conditions are generally positive about the pharmaceurtical industry - but have begun to worry about industry R&DEmbargoed publication date: , 16th August 2018, 6am GMTPress release based on the results of a new report: 'The Corporate Reputation of Pharma, 2017—the Perspective of Respiratory Patient Groups', 3rd edition
11 companies analysed in this report: AstraZeneca I Bayer I Boehringer Ingelheim I Chiesi Farmaceutici I GSK I Merck & Co/MSD I Novartis I Pfizer I Roche (Genentech in the US) I Sanofi I and Teva. State of relationships between respiratory patient groups and the pharmaceutical industry 42% of the respiratory patient groups respondent to the 2017 'Corporate Reputation of Pharma' survey stated that pharma industry’s overall corporate reputation was “Excellent” or “Good” that year. Though down on the equivalent 2016 figure of 51%, the 2017 figure from respiratory patient groups was on a par with that reported by the full respondent body of 1,330 patient groups therapy wide.
Respiratory patient groups felt (more so than patient groups from most other therapy areas) that the pharmaceutical industry performed all its key activities well in 2017. The three graphs below show generally positive attitudes from respiratory patient groups to three examples of these pharma activities: patient centricity; patient information; and transparency in the funding of external healthcare stakeholders. Patient groups’ views on the pharma industry’s performance at three individual indicators of corporate reputation—respiratory patient groups, compared with patient groups from 21 other therapy areas, plus all respondent patient groups (of all therapy areas), 2017 The percentage of patient groups saying that the pharmaceutical industry was “Excellent” or “Good” in 2017 at the following three individual indicators of corporate reputation Respiratory patient groups do worry about industry R&D, thoughHowever, respiratory patient groups were less certain in 2017 than in the previous year (2016) that pharma was innovating well, and generating high-quality products, of use to patients.
Respiratory patient groups 2017, v. respiratory patient groups 2016, v. patient groups of all therapy areas: The percentage of patient groups assessing how good or bad the pharmaceutical industry was at the 12 indicators of corporate reputation, plus the specific activity of being innovative. Percentage of patient groups stating “Excellent” or “Good” How pharma could improve: some comments from respiratory patient groups ... Despite expressing a reasonable amount of satisfaction with pharma, 2017’s respondent respiratory patient groups made a number of comments and suggestions as to how companies could further improve corporate reputation. For example: Improving patient centricity, through greater engagement with patient groups.
Improving integrity, by having honest and open partnerships with patient groups. "Sponsorship and partnership—with transparency.” — National respiratory-conditions patient group, Canada Improving transparency when funding healthcare stakeholders, through publicising the funding of these stakeholders.
Improving R&D output and access to medicines, through engaging patients in R&D decision-making.
So, how did the companies perform at corporate reputation in 2017, in the viewpoints of patient groups specialising in respiratory conditions? Ranking at corporate reputation is measured by patient groups familiar with a company.
PROFILES OF THE 49 PATIENT GROUPS SPECIALISING IN RESPIRATORY CONDITIONS, AND PARTICIPATING IN THE 2017 STUDY Therapy area of 2017's 49 respiratory patient groups: Number Country headquarters of 2017’s 49 respondent respiratory patient groups: Number Geographic remit of 2017's 49 respiratory patient groups: Percentage FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THIS REPORT, PLEASE USE THE CONTACT DETAILS BELOW-End of press release-
|