'Corporate Reputation of the Medical-Device Industry in 2017—the Patient Perspective', 6th edition
Dear Editor, We are sending you this embargoed press release ahead of its release on the date mentioned below. If you would like to obtain a full copy of the report please just email alexwyke@patient-view.com. Yours sincerely Alex Wyke, CEO PatientView EMBARGOED DATE: 6.00am GMT Monday, 23rd October 2017
The advent of wearables and the increasing uptake of health apps are both trends that make patients ever more aware of medical devices (and the companies which manufacture them). This survey of 513 patient groups worldwide, conducted June-August 2017, provides feedback (from the perspective of these patient groups) on the corporate reputation of the medical-device industry, as well as on the performance of 39 different medical-device companies at seven key indicators of corporate reputation (from a patient perspective). The 39 companies analysed 3M Healthcare I Abbott Laboratories I Advanced Bionics I Alcon I B. Braun Melsungen AG I Bausch + Lomb I Baxter International I Becton, Dickinson and Company I Boston Scientific I Clinimed I Cochlear Americas I Coloplast A/S I ConvaTec I Fresenius Medical Care I GE Healthcare I Grifols I Hartmann Group I Hitachi I Hollister I Invacare I Ipsen I Johnson & Johnson I MED-EL I Medtronic I Mölnlycke Health Care I Novo Nordisk A/S I Olympus Medical Business I Omron I Ortho Clinical Diagnostics I Oticon I Philips Healthcare I Phonak I Roche Diagnostics I Sanofi I Siemens Healthineers I Smith & Nephew I St. Jude Medical I Stryker I Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation FINDINGS: THE CORPORATE REPUTATION OF THE MEDICAL-DEVICE INDUSTRY—WHAT PATIENT GROUPS SAY IN 2017 A respectable 61% of the 513 patient groups replying to the 2017 survey thought that the medical-device industry had an 'Excellent' or 'Good' corporate reputation. However, results do vary significantly among patient groups—depending on their country/region of location. For instance, patient groups from Eastern Europe, Latin America, and the US exhibit some startling differences in attitude to the medical-device industry, when compared with the pharmaceutical industry. Percentage of patient groups from different countries/regions stating that the medical-device industry had an 'Excellent' or 'Good' corporate reputation in 2017 Patient groups in Eastern Europe and Latin America view pharma far more favourably for corporate reputation in 2017 than they do the medical-device industry. Comments received from patient groups responding to the 2017 medical-device corporate-reputation survey (and from those responding to the 2016-2017 pharmaceutical-industry corporate-reputation survey) make clear that the problems of access to medical devices (particularly hospital devices) are far more severe in Eastern Europe and Latin America than they are for the supply of medicines in the two regions. Patient groups in the USA, by contrast, view pharma far more negatively for corporate reputation in 2017 than they do the medical-device industry. The pharmaceutical industry's pricing policies received attention in the USA following criticisms by President Trump (especially those made during his late-2016 election campaign). By contrast, the medical-device industry has remained relatively immune from such criticisms—and, in fact, stands to benefit from new tax breaks under the Trump presidency. FINDINGS: THE CORPORATE REPUTATION OF MEDICAL-DEVICE COMPANIES—WHAT PATIENT GROUPS SAY IN 2017How medical-devices companies ranked for the seven indicators of corporate reputation, 2017 The top of the medical-device league table for corporate reputation in 2017—from a patient perspective—is dominated by companies operating within either of one or two broad sectors: continence/ostomy, and hearing loss. Products made by companies in the two sectors are physically handled by patients, who then become well acquainted with their devices, and appreciative of them (and the manufacturer). Thus:
On the other hand, companies manufacturing devices in two other sectors that also involve much hands-on product interaction by patients—visual impairment, and blood-pressure monitoring—do not perform as well for corporate reputation. Such a finding suggests (rather surprisingly) that companies trading within the latter two sectors consider patient groups less important to them. Sitting at the bottom of the corporate-reputation league table are companies that manufacture medical imaging—products relatively unknown to most patients (and even to most patient groups). FINDINGS: MEDICAL-DEVICE COMPANY SECTOR ANALYSIS Which companies ranked 1st among their peers in four different medical-device sectors? To give companies (and the respondent patient groups reading the report) an idea of company performance at corporate reputation among like-with-like peers, PatientView has provided, for the first time, an indication of how well medical-device companies do at corporate reputation when compared with the other companies in their specialist sector. Average scores across the seven indicators of corporate reputation 2017 [figure in brackets is the number of patient groups familiar with the company—upon which the percentages are based] CONTINENCE/STOMA (relevant patient groups) DIABETES (relevant patient groups) HEARING LOSS (relevant patient groups) MEDICAL IMAGING (all patient groups) FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THIS REPORT What is corporate reputation? In this survey, corporate reputation is defined for patient groups. "Are companies meeting the expectations of the relevant patient groups?"
INDUSTRY-WIDE ANALYSES, 2017
COMPANY ANALYSES, 2017
The seven indicators of corporate reputation from a patient perspective: 1. Patient centricity; 2. The provision of high-quality patient information; 3. Patient safety; 4. The provision of high-quality products; 5. Transparency; 6. Integrity; and 7. The quality of relationships with patient groups. In addition, the report features ...
--END OF PRESS RELEASE-- |