The Corporate Reputation of Pharma Companies, 2016: from the Perspective of 98 Asian Patient Groups
Published Wednesday, May 31st 2017—part of a series of reports offered by PatientView Format is PDF (101 pages)
- These Asian results are derived from a global review of pharma's corporate reputation (conducted November 2016 to early-February 2017).
- The Asian results form the opinions of 98 patient groups: 42 came from Australasia; 11 from Central
Asia; 27 from East Asia; 5 from South Asia; and 13 from South-East Asia. - 16 pharma companies are included in this 2016 Asian analysis: AbbVie I Astrazeneca I Bayer I Boehringer Ingelheim I Bristol-Myers Squibb I
Eli Lilly I GSK I Janssen I Merck & Co I Novartis I Novo Nordisk I Pfizer I
Roche I Sandoz I Sanofi I and Takeda.
How pharma is assessed for corporate reputation
Industry-wide questions: - How the pharma industry’s corporate reputation compares with that of other healthcare industries.
- How the pharma industry’s corporate reputation has changed over the past five years.
- How
good or bad the pharma industry is at various activities of relevance to patients and patient groups.
7 indicators show the corporate reputation of individual pharma companies: - Patient centricity.
- Information for patients.
- Patient safety.
- Usefulness of products.
- Transparency.
- Integrity.
- Patient-group relationships (new for 2016).
[On transparency] “Perhaps ask the external
stakeholders for feedback, and publish the results.” —Local osteoporosis patient group, Australia
[On patient-group relations] “Communicate with our
patient group when applications are being made to government agencies, re medicines relevant to our
condition. Support information and events, to help inform medical practitioners, patients and families about best practice.” —National rare-condition patient group, New Zealand
[On patient information] "患者中心の医療ではなくまだま だ医者中心の医療と思われる。何かの形で患者の声
を聴く体制を整え、医療者をはじめ、広く社会に納 得させ、今の体制から患者中心の医療へと変えてほ
しい。” (“It seems that it is not a patient-centered
medical treatment, but a doctor-centered medical
treatment. I would like you to arrange a system to
listen to the patient’s voice in some form, convince
society in general (including medical professionals),
and change from the current system to patient-centered
medical care.”) — NPO法人 ねむの樹, National lymphoedema and
breast-cancer patient group, Japan
- Asian patient groups were more positive about the pharma industry’s
corporate reputation than patient groups worldwide. In 2016, as many as 49.46% of Asian patient groups thought that the pharma industry
had an “Excellent” or “Good” corporate reputation, compared with just 37.9% of patient groups from across the world. - Asian patient groups ranked pharma 1st in 2016 among eight healthcare-industry sectors for having an
“Excellent” or “Good” corporate reputation. By contrast, patient groups from all geographic areas
ranked pharma 5th in 2016.
% of respondent Asian patient groups in 2016 describing pharma as “Excellent” or “Good” at having high-quality products
- Asian patient groups were more positive about many of the pharma industry’s activities (with the exception of innovation).
- How can pharma improve its corporate reputation?
When respondent Asian patient groups were asked to single out the one activity most likely to help pharma improve its corporate reputation, 17% nominated fair pricing, 16% picked patient centricity, and 13% suggested having good
relationships with patient groups.
% of respondent Asian patient groups describing pharma as “Excellent” or “Good” at being innovative
THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PHARMA COMPANIES AND PATIENT GROUPS
Levels of familiarity among Asian patient groups with the 16 featured pharma companies, 2016. % of respondent Asian patient groups saying that they were familiar with the company
- The company with which Asian patient groups were most familiar was Pfizer (66% of respondent Asian patient groups were familiar with Pfizer). Followed by Novartis (at 60%).
INDIVIDUAL COMPANY FINDINGS
Results among patient groups familiar with the company
- AbbVie ranked overall 1st for corporate reputation among Asian patient groups familiar with it. AbbVie also ranked 1st for three of the seven indicators of corporate reputation: patient centricity; transparency; and patient-group relations.
- GSK ranked 1st for the provision of high-quality patient information.
- Novo Nordisk ranked 1st for patient safety, for the provision of high-quality products, and for integrity (Novo Nordisk’s favourable results were mostly driven by the respondent Asian haemophilia patient groups).
Results among patient groups that work with the company
- GSK was positioned overall 1st for corporate reputation by its Asian patient-group partners. They also placed GSK 1st for five of the seven indicators of corporate reputation (the exceptions were patient centricity, and patient-group relations).
- Eli Lilly was positioned 1st for patient centricity by its patient-group partners.
- Novartis was positioned 1st for patient-group
relations by its patient-group partners.
CONTENTS AND DATA PROVIDED FOR EACH COMPANY
Contents - Executive summary.
- Asian patient-group relationships with
pharma. - Industry-wide findings from Asian
patient groups. - Asian patient groups on improving
corporate reputation. - Rankings of the 16 pharma companies among Asian patient groups FAMILIAR with them.
- Positioning of the 16 pharma
companies among PARTNER Asian
patient groups. - Profiles of the 16 pharma companies.
- Comments from respondent Asian patient groups.
- Profile of the 98 respondent
Asian patient groups.
Company profiles: - Rankings among Asian patient groups for the indicators of corporate reputation among patient groups familiar with the company, and which work/partner
with the company, 2016.
- The company's average scores for the 7 indicators of corporate reputation, 2016 versus 2015.
- The company’s performance for the 7 indicators of corporate reputation, 2016.
- The company’s rankings among patient groups for the indicators of corporate reputation, 2016: Asia versus therapy wide; familiar with versus worked with.
- Percentage of the patient groups that worked with the company—but which also worked with other companies, 2016.
- How the company did at corporate reputation in different countries/therapy areas, compared with its Asian average, 2016.
For more information about this Asian analysis, please use contact details below.
|