KEY TAKEAWAYS

• ISPEP’s white paper argues that pharmaceutical companies must move beyond superficial patient centricity to establish genuine, long-term collaborative relationships.

• ISPEP presents 5 strategic recommendations to transform how industry engages with patients throughout drug development lifecycles.

The International Society for Patient Engagement in Publications (ISPEP) has published a white paper challenging pharmaceutical companies to honour their commitments to meaningful patient involvement. Authors Chris Gray, Rob Wyer, and Steve Clark argue that while many organisations have embraced patient-centric rhetoric, implementation often falls short and risks alienating the very people it aims to support.

The authors highlight a growing disparity between pharmaceutical companies’ public commitments and patients’ experiences. Survey data reveal a stark perception gap: while 72% of industry employees agreed with the statement “My company communicates with care and compassion, transparent and unbiased information on diseases, treatment options, and available resources”, only 32% of patients agreed.

“Survey data reveal a stark perception gap: while 72% of industry employees agreed with the statement “My company communicates with care and compassion, transparent and unbiased information on diseases, treatment options, and available resources”, only 32% of patients agreed.”

The authors highlight that regulatory authorities are ahead of pharma when it comes to patient engagement: both  the Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency expect patient involvement in the drug development process and consult directly with patient groups and individuals.

Five strategic priorities for revolutionising patient collaboration

The white paper presents a comprehensive framework built around 5 key recommendations:

1. Maintain continuity across the lifecycle

Organisations should ensure lifecycle continuity by establishing sustained partnerships that transcend departmental boundaries. Many companies fail to maintain relationships once specific studies conclude, despite patients requiring ongoing support. In addition, patients may become frustrated when requests come from multiple departments.

2. Build a legacy

Companies should establish enduring impact through collaborative, multi-sponsor initiatives that protect patient communities from development setbacks or shifting corporate priorities.

3. Elevate patient advocacy

Pharmaceutical companies must champion patient representation internally by embedding patient perspectives within core business strategy with executive leadership backing.

4. Measure and report progress

Companies should implement robust systems to track and communicate outcomes using comprehensive evaluation frameworks that combine qualitative insights with quantitative metrics.

5. Challenge, reinterpret, and rewrite SOPs

Finally, organisations must reform standard operating procedures (SOPs) that may inadvertently restrict meaningful patient collaboration.

The authors conclude that as patients are the end users, they ultimately determine the success of new therapies. Developing and maintaining patient collaborations will help to overcome the disconnect between patient and pharma needs and improve outcomes for all stakeholders.

—————————————————

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Health misinformation is a serious issue linked to low health literacy, with spread exacerbated by social media and AI.
• Pharmaceutical companies can help combat health misinformation through engaging with patients to develop accessible materials, and reaching audiences through the digital channels they use.

The spread of misinformation can have a serious impact on health and weaken public confidence in healthcare professionals and the pharmaceutical industry. In a recent PMLiVE article, Catherine Devaney explores how pharmaceutical companies can help combat the rapid spread of health misinformation online.

Devaney highlights that a lack of trust in institutions, healthcare systems, and governments is driving the public away from traditional sources of health information. In addition, “misinformation is easier to understand for many people”, with ~40% of working age adults in the UK unable to understand everyday health information due to low levels of health literacy. Health misinformation spreads rapidly on social media and through the use of AI, and often gains traction by appealing to emotions like fear, hope, or scepticism.

“Health communicators must proactively build trust by making information available in an accessible and engaging way.”

Devaney advises that health communicators must proactively build trust by making information available in an accessible and engaging way. She outlines key actions that health communicators in pharma can take, including:

• fostering relationships between key stakeholders, including healthcare professionals, scientists, and patient advocates, to promote transparency and trust
• gaining accreditation for evidence-based, plain language, and accessible materials, such as the Patient Information Forum (PIF) TICK certification
• engaging with patients who will use the information during the development process, to learn from their unique insights and ensure that the content is tailored to their needs
• monitoring digital platforms proactively for misinformation trends and developing a plan to engage with audiences via the same channels.

Devaney urges the pharmaceutical industry to use their expertise and resources to join the fight against misinformation, making a positive impact on health inequities.

—————————————————

The 21^st Annual Meeting of the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) took place in Washington, DC on 12–14 May. Centring on the theme ‘Diversity and Innovation: In Concert’, the meeting highlighted how uniting varied perspectives can drive creativity and progress in medical communications.

A summary of the first day of the meeting is provided below to benefit those who were unable to attend the meeting, and as a timely reminder of the key topics covered for those who did.

You can read our summary of Day 2 here; and our Day 3 summary here.

Summaries of Day 1

Presidential address

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Medical publication professionals should embrace diversity of thought and lead with compassion, clarity, and patient-centred values.
• ISMPP members are encouraged to take an active role in shaping the future of the profession.

Diversity of thought is essential for overcoming blind spots and advancing meaningful science.

Jennifer Ghith (GSK) opened the 21^st Annual Meeting of ISMPP, framing medical publications as a mission rather than just a profession—a mission rooted in compassion and scientific integrity. She urged medical publication professionals to champion values such as clarity and inclusivity, noting that diversity of thought was essential for overcoming blind spots and advancing meaningful science. Her remarks set the tone for the meeting’s theme: “Diversity and Innovation: In Concert.”

ISMPP President Rob Matheis acknowledged the variety of challenges faced by publication professionals but urged members to take pride in the profession’s increasing relevance, celebrating the shift towards patient-centred communication and highlighting the need to focus not just on clinical metrics but on the impact treatments have on people’s daily lives. Using the standard deviation equation as a metaphor, Matheis reminded the audience that variability is intrinsic to science—and that the same holds true for innovation in publications.

Matheis reported that ISMPP remains in excellent health, with a balanced budget, strong membership, and an expanding portfolio of initiatives to further progress the society. Key developments include the introduction of a patient membership programme and enhanced tools for members, such as the ISMPP Expert Directory, ISMPP Learning Hub, and resources on digital publication extenders. He also showcased ways for members to get involved through society committees and collaborative projects.

Matheis concluded with a call for members—new and established alike—to participate actively in ISMPP’s work, reinforcing the strength and unity of the medical publications community.

Keynote – Why does it take 5 to tango in health care? – Dr. Verena Voelter

KEY TAKEAWAY

• The conventional siloed approach to healthcare is duplicative and inefficient and stakeholders need to work together to create value in healthcare. Medical publications professionals can help create these networks.

Breaking down complexity in healthcare delivery

Dr. Verena Voelter, internist and oncologist, and author of It Takes 5 to Tango and The Next Tango: a Patient Guide, discussed how cooperation in healthcare can lead to greater efficiency and improved patient outcomes. Voelter started by describing how silos exist within the increasingly complex world of healthcare delivery. She provided examples of how problems and issues arise when healthcare delivery is viewed from the perspective of only one of the five ‘P’s: patients, providers, pharma, payers, and policy makers. By having a greater understanding of the needs and perspectives of other participants in healthcare delivery, these problems can often be addressed in collaborative ways that are simple and efficient.

The importance of conversations

The first step in fostering this collaborative approach is to start conversations that relate to the needs of the different participants and focused on patient outcomes. Dr Voelter gave an example of where a skincare company was struggling to gain payer approval for the use of their product. They developed a tool that enabled healthcare professionals to send pictures to the payers, shortening time to payer approval.

Dr Voelter also explored the extent to which medical publication professionals can play a role in this process. The majority response from an audience survey was ‘a lot’. Dr Voelter suggested that stakeholder mapping followed by greater engagement with others would help identify unmet needs. An important part of this is asking questions and listening.

Artificial Intelligence and redefining VUCA

On the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare, Voelter though that while AI can be a useful tool in healthcare, the questions that are asked must be the right ones, and that comes from having a good understanding of the unmet needs. Regarding the role of collaboration in generating new ideas, Dr Voelter urged us to include more perspectives: ‘Innovation happens at the intersection.’

“Include more perspectives: Innovation happens at the intersection.”

Although healthcare is a complex environment, often characterised by the acronym VUCA: volatility, uncertainty, chaos, and ambiguity, Dr Voelter urged us to become the 6^th ‘P’ in the equation. By harnessing the power of our networks, we can help to bring value, address unmet needs, collaborate and be proactive.

Member research oral presentations

Driving real-time equity analysis to enhance the impact of medical publishing

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Achieving equity in medical publishing requires proactive and structured consideration at every stage of the publication process.

In the first presentation of the Member Research session, Laura Watts (Lumanity) introduced a practical framework aimed at addressing disparities in healthcare access from a publishing perspective.

Building on the Cochrane Group’s PROGRESS-Plus framework; a list of characteristics thought to stratify health opportunities and outcomes, and the results of a literature search,  Watts and colleagues developed 40 questions designed to prompt inclusive thinking at each stage of the publication process. Examples include:

• How are the study outcomes determined?
• How is it decided which post hoc analyses to support?
• What criteria are used for nominating peer reviewers?

The study concluded that rethinking medical communications through a practical framework ensures scientific rigour and diverse representation, advancing equity and innovation in global health. Contribution to the further development of this framework was encouraged, with Watts emphasising the attendee’s role in pursuing equity in medical publishing.

Everyone in this room is positioned to change [global disparities in access to healthcare information].

Empathy as innovation: assessing the perception of empathy in scientific writing

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Empathy is associated with improved patient satisfaction and compliance, but no standard metric for assessing empathy in scientific writing exists.

The second talk of the session presented by Naseem Ahmed (Inizio) and Leah Bernstein (Inizio) explored how different characteristics of sample abstracts impacted the perception of empathy amongst seven patients/patient advocates/caregivers, and twenty-two medical writers.

Although both groups rated empathy in scientific writing as somewhat to extremely important, opinions on how this was characterised differed. Patients selected comprehensibility and readability as the most important factors in conveying empathy, while medical writers prioritised empathetic descriptions of disease impact and use of patient-first language.

Further analysis revealed that empathy ratings were highly correlated with tone and patient-first language scores amongst patients and medical writers, respectively. Across all participants, the SMOG index (Simple Measure of Gobbledygook) scoring system showed the strongest overall correlation with empathy ratings, suggesting it may serve as a useful starting point in the development of a metric for assessing empathy.

The SMOG (Simple Measure of Gobbledygook) index may be a useful starting point to assess empathy.

Bridging the gap: a roadmap to patient partnerships through practical tools, inclusive language, and impact measurement

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Meaningful and measurable patient involvement starts with early, transparent engagement, supported by practical tools and inclusive language.

The persistent challenges of effective patient engagement in medical publications took centre stage during a dynamic panel session moderated by Catherine Skobe (Pfizer). Joined by speakers Mohammed Najeeb Ashraf (SciVoc Consulting Inc.), Simon Stones (Amica Scientific), and Jennifer Regala (Wolters Kluwer Health), the panel shared actionable solutions informed by recent ISMPP initiatives and insights from member surveys.

Key barriers to patient engagement

The discussion began by exploring common barriers including limited time and resources, a lack of transparency around patient compensation, and language-related challenges. The panel stressed the need to involve patients early, foster open and ongoing dialogue, and accommodate diverse learning preferences to improve engagement outcomes.

Tools and resources to support engagement

ISMPP’s Patient Engagement webpage now hosts a range of practical tools, including a patient lexicon, engagement enablers (coming soon), and impact metrics. Looking ahead, the upcoming PLS Finder tool—a cross-publisher initiative—aims to streamline access to plain language summaries (PLS) via an intuitive search platform.

Inclusive language emerged as a critical foundation for building trust and promoting health literacy.

Inclusive language emerged as a critical foundation for building trust and promoting health literacy. The panel encouraged using person-first language, integrating multimedia resources such as videos and podcasts, and setting clear expectations at the outset of patient partnerships.

Measuring the impact of engagement

To assess the effectiveness of patient involvement, the panel recommended combining quantitative measures—like publication reach and social media engagement—with qualitative feedback through focus groups and interviews. Understanding patient motivations and ensuring comprehensive onboarding were highlighted as essential to achieving meaningful and lasting engagement.

New guiding principles on the horizon

The session closed with a preview of ISMPP’s upcoming patient partnership guiding principles. The principles will provide a best practice resource to publication professionals to support effective and respectful collaborations with patients and advocacy groups.

AI-generated content and copyright – are we synthesizing, sampling or stealing?

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Medical publication professionals must prioritise transparency, verify licensing before using generative AI tools, and stay informed as copyright laws evolve.

Gary Lyons (Coronado Research) led a timely discussion on the evolving intersection of AI and copyright in medical publishing. He was joined by panellists Catherine Zaller Rowland (Copyright Clearance Center), Tammy Ravas (University of Montana), and Chris Bendall (Research Solutions). Together, they explored the copyright implications of using generative AI (GenAI) tools and shared best practices for the responsible use of journal content.

The session opened with a review of copyright principles, including Creative Commons licenses, open access publications, and licensing frameworks. A key concern was ownership: while the use of copyrighted materials as inputs for AI tools can violate existing laws, AI-generated outputs currently cannot be copyrighted in the US—though this may change and the law varies across other countries.

Key ethical and legal considerations

• Authorship: GenAI tools cannot be credited as authors; human accountability remains essential.
• Transparency: Disclosing AI use in content creation is critical, and professionals should follow established guidelines, including those from the ICMJE and WAME.
• Terms of service: Users must carefully review platform terms to fully understand data usage and ownership rights.

Towards responsible AI use

It is both possible and essential to balance copyright protection with responsible AI adoption.

As the field of AI in publishing continues to develop, it is both possible and essential to balance copyright protection with responsible AI adoption. The panel recommended the following actions:

• Stay informed: Monitor developments in copyright law and advancements in AI technology.
• Establish clear policies: Develop comprehensive internal guidelines for AI usage and copyright compliance.
• Secure appropriate licensing: Ensure all materials are properly licensed through direct or collective agreements.

The session concluded with an overview of some practical tools designed to support responsible AI use in medical publishing, including:

• Author checklists for incorporating AI responsibly in research and manuscript preparation.
• New resources from the ISMPP AI task force, providing up-to-date guidance on AI-related publishing practices.

Tuning out bias in medical communications: amplifying diverse voices for innovation

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Mitigating bias is essential for maintaining equity and inclusivity in medical research, and requires collaborative approaches throughout the publication process.

Mitigation of bias should be central to medical publication strategies.

 Statistical bias: a case study

To begin this session, moderated by Susanne Ulm (Alphabet Health), Eric Teoh (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) illustrated the impact of bias in data generation, analysis and interpretation by presenting data comparisons for vehicle crash rates amongst automated vehicles vs. human drivers. Superficially, crash rates for automated vehicles appear up to 4 times greater than those for human drivers. However, when accounting for statistical bias – such as mandatory reporting of minor incidents for automated vehicles – adjusted crash rates may be around 40% lower than those for human drivers.

AI perspectives

Walter Bender (Sorcero) explored the tendencies of large language models (LLMs) to introduce bias or misinformation. Data hallucinations and use of language which is overly promotional, conclusive, or biased – such as LLMs automatically referring to people with breast cancer as women – were just some of the examples discussed, with Bender advocating for both human and AI oversight in mitigating these issues.

LLMs are always certain, sometimes right.

Publishing and Medical Writing perspectives

Tim Mackey, Editor-in-chief of Infodemiology, a Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) publication, and Susanne Elm (Alphabet Health), stressed the potential for introduction of bias at every stage of the research and publishing process. Speaking to his background in both the publishing and research industries, Mackey explored the responsibilities of authors, reviewers and editors as overseers of generative AI tools, guided by principles outlined in an editorial published in JMIR.

Recommended approaches to mitigating bias

The session concluded with a summary of recommendations to make bias mitigation central to publication strategies. Speakers emphasised the need for hybrid human–AI collaboration, inclusivity, and transparency, and called for a commitment to continuous learning and improvement.

The revised ISMPP Code of Ethics – a harmonization of ethical principles and advances in the field of medical publications

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The ISMPP Code of Ethics sets out the shared global values for medical publication professionals.
• Updates to the code will provide much needed guidance regarding the use of AI, increased patient involvement in publications and the growing need for transparency.

The revised ISMPP Code of Ethics will address the evolving complexities of medical publishing while preserving the core values of integrity, transparency, legal compliance, and objectivity.

 A new era for publication ethics

Thomas Gegeny (Prime Global), Jennie Jacobson (Jacobson Medical Writing), Marcel Kuttab (AstraZeneca), Valerie Moss (Prime Global), and Kelly Soldavin (Taylor & Francis) described the rationale for updating the ISMPP Code of Ethics for the current era of medical publishing. Revisions to the code will address the evolving complexities of medical publishing—clarifying expectations around AI, the growing role of patient advocates and caregivers, and the need for transparency—while preserving its core values of integrity, transparency, legal compliance, and objectivity.

A new user-friendly format

An important change to the code is the new user-friendly format, with topic-based navigation, embedded hyperlinks, and an upcoming interactive eLearn module. The changes reflect input from AMWA, EMWA, journal publishers, and the ISMPP AI Task Force, ensuring broad relevance across regions and disciplines.

Real world dilemmas: the code in practice

The session spotlighted several case studies, with audience discussion focusing on last-minute author changes, journal choice disputes and payment of patient authors. Cases tested the boundaries of current best practices and demonstrated how the code could guide best practice and uphold publication ethics.

Empowering publication professionals

As members of cross-functional teams involved in publication development, medical publications professionals are well positioned to advocate for the highest level of integrity; the updated code will continue to support best practice in the field.

Guided poster tour

Attendees also had the opportunity to attend guided poster tours of the following posters:

• What about sex? A call to action for improved sex and gender reporting in industry-sponsored clinical research: results from a literature review – Liz Southey, Olivia Kager, Elena Mills, Laure Nas de Tourris, Emma Vitalini, Alice Witt, Kate Womersley
• Beyond the surface: How are diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) integrated into research and publication strategies? – Anthea Scothern, Kennedy Shaw, Olympia Gianfrancesco, Charlotte Chapman

Roundtable Sessions

Attendees then had the opportunity to participate in a series of roundtable discussions, covering the following topics:

• Harmonizing diverse perspectives to orchestrate real world evidence publishing
• Composing tuned-in medical content for global audiences
• Orchestrating evidence generation and dissemination: The power of diverse steering committees
• What impact will AI and other market factors potentially have on the way publications are resourced into the future?
• In symphony: How the pub professional can bridge silos in integrated evidence planning across the product lifecycle
• Walking the bassline: A new rhythm for commercial interests and medical ethics in patient authorship
• Broadening the impact of medical communications through audio publication enhancements
• Inclusivity in symphony: Orchestrating an accessible future for healthcare communications
• Author agreements to align roles and responsibilities
• Best practices for effective patient communications in rare diseases
• Inclusivity in dialogue: ED&I considerations for enhancing patient partnerships in publications
• Orchestrating omnichannel success in medical affairs: Building the foundation for HCP engagement
• Raise your voice: Orchestrating cross-publisher PLSP guidance
• SLRs: Evolving requirements to ensure publication
• Open forum discussion for newer medical publication professionals
• Finding the rhythm: Achieving excellence in simultaneous congress presentation and high-tier journal publication
• Overcoming the challenges of a virtual workplace

Why not also read our summaries of Day 2 and Day 3 of the meeting?

——————————————————–

Written as part of a Media Partnership between ISMPP and The Publication Plan, by Aspire Scientific, an independent medical writing agency led by experienced editorial team members, and supported by MSc and/or PhD-educated writers.

——————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• From January 2025, The BMJ is offering £50 or a 12-month online subscription to a BMJ journal for patients and members of the public who review an article.
• The BMJ hopes the policy will help to expand and diversify participation from its patient and public reviewers.

Patients, advocates, and public reviewers play an important role in the reporting of medical research by offering their lived experiences and perspectives. Starting from January 2025, The BMJ is complementing the 12-month BMJ online subscription given to all reviewers, adding £50 or a 12-month online subscription to any BMJ journal for patient and public reviewers.

The BMJ introduced patient and public reviews in 2014 and have accumulated over 2,600 patient and public reviews across various article types. These help to evaluate:

• the relevance and importance of research questions
• the appropriateness of outcome measures
• how patient and public involvement is reported.

The new BMJ policy aligns with National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) guidelines on payments for public involvement in research and aims to:

• compensate the time and effort of patient and public reviewers
• expand and diversify patient reviewer participation.

Expanding representation in patient and public reviews

While The BMJ has over 1,000 engaged patient and public reviewers from over 20 countries, most reviews in the past decade were conducted by women based in the UK and US. The experiences of patient reviewers for The BMJ are positive, and their feedback has helped develop further guidance and training. Feedback from current reviewers and an international patient and public advisory panel also underpins the latest change in compensation.

The BMJ hopes that remuneration will diversify participation in reviews and increase representation.

The BMJ hopes that remuneration will diversify participation in reviews and increase representation across:

• geographic locations
• ethnicities
• genders
• areas of lived patient experiences.

How will this change the future of peer review?

The BMJ announcement acknowledges the value of patient perspectives in medical research, sitting alongside other initiatives to amplify patient engagement in scientific publications and address barriers to participation. However, broader discussions persist around whether clinical peer reviewers should be compensated and how to sustainably improve the peer review process while maintaining quality and integrity. The BMJ plan to monitor the impact of the new policy – we look forward to reading their updates.

————————————————–

The 2025 European Meeting of the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) was held in London on 27–29 January. The meeting, which was themed ‘Core Values for an Integrated Age’, saw a record-breaking 418 delegates in attendance.

A summary of the second day of the meeting is provided below to benefit those who were unable to attend the meeting, and as a timely reminder of the key topics covered for those who did.

A summary of the first day of the meeting can be found here.

Summaries of Day 2

Empowering patient voices in authorship: navigating barriers and enhancing support

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Patient authors provide valuable insights, but barriers like submission challenges, lack of support, and compensation concerns must be addressed.
• Collaboration among publishers, industry, and advocacy groups is key to ensuring fair and meaningful inclusion in research.

Moderated by Stuart Donald (Krystelis), this parallel session addressed the challenges and opportunities surrounding patient involvement in medical publications. Ngawai Moss (independent patient advocate) and Laurence Woollard (On The Pulse) represented the patient author point of view, while Emma Doble (BMJ) and Rachel Kendrick (AstraZeneca) provided a publisher and industry perspective, respectively. Discussions focused on the barriers patient authors face, support mechanisms, and ethical considerations regarding compensation.

The patient journey to authorship

For many patient authors, the journey begins with advocacy or participation in clinical trials. However, the transition to formal authorship presents several hurdles. The complexity of the submission process can be overwhelming, requiring knowledge of formatting, peer review expectations, and revisions. Many patients lack mentorship, making it difficult to navigate rejections and feedback.

Time constraints also play a significant role. Many patient authors have health conditions, caregiving responsibilities, or professional commitments that limit their ability to engage fully in the writing process. Additionally, access to medical journals remains a major barrier, as many patients cannot afford subscription fees to read relevant research.

Support from publishers and industry

Publishers like BMJ have been leading the way in integrating patient voices, having published patient-authored articles for over 30 years. Their initiatives include patient advisory panels, editorial board representation, and author guidance to simplify the publication process. To further ease the journey, BMJ assigns dedicated contacts to patient authors, reducing the administrative burden of participation.

The industry perspective on patient authorship is evolving but remains inconsistent. According to Kendrick, companies recognise the value of patient perspectives but often lack standardised approaches to inclusion. Many organisations are now working to establish clearer guidelines and engage patients earlier in the research process, ensuring their voices shape publications from the outset rather than as an afterthought.

Many organisations are now working to establish clearer guidelines and engage patients earlier in the research process, ensuring their voices shape publications from the outset rather than as an afterthought.

Compensation and ethical considerations

The issue of compensating patient authors sparked debate, with Woollard highlighting concerns about accessibility,  and arguing that the elitism in academic publishing creates barriers for patient contributors. He advocated for financial reimbursement, particularly for industry-sponsored publications, and called for fair market value standardisation to ensure consistency in compensation. Providing the counterargument, Kendrick cautioned that direct payment for authorship could introduce bias and reputational risks, particularly in industry-funded research. Instead, she emphasised the importance of transparency and aligning compensation policies with ethical publishing standards.

Recognition and authorship tagging

There is no clear consensus on how to identify patient authors in medical literature. While some advocate for clear labelling to highlight patient contributions, others worry that ‘patient author’ tags could reinforce tokenism. One proposed solution is allowing multiple affiliations, recognising patient authors not just for their lived experience but also for their expertise in advocacy or research.

Some patient authors also prefer anonymous or pseudonymous contributions, protecting them from public scrutiny. To address this, the panel recommended early discussions between patient authors and collaborators to set expectations regarding authorship disclosure and acknowledgment.

The shape of things to come? Beyond the traditional manuscript (a balloon debate)

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• An interactive debate saw the audience vote on the future of scientific communication.
• AI, PLS, podcasts, and videos were proposed as alternative publication formats, but traditional manuscripts prevailed as the foundation of medical publishing.

Rethinking scientific publications: A balloon debate

In this parallel session, a dynamic balloon debate challenged the traditional scientific manuscript’s role in modern publishing. Although scientific papers have moved online, their core format has remained largely unchanged since 1665. Thought leaders advocated for alternative publication formats better suited to today’s digital landscape.

Alternative formats in medical communication

• AI-generated content: Jason Gardner (Real Chemistry) introduced ‘GEMMA’ (Generates Every Medical Manuscript Artificially), arguing that AI could tailor scientific content for different audiences while maintaining the manuscript as a cornerstone.
• PLS: Amanda Boughey (Envision Pharma Group) highlighted data showing high usefulness ratings of PLS among HCPs, emphasising that PLS enhance accessibility without compromising scientific integrity.
• Podcasts & audio articles: Clare Cook (Adis) emphasised the flexibility of audio formats, allowing HCPs to absorb information on the go. Podcasts can incorporate expert voices, patient perspectives, and facilitate nuanced discussions while being peer-reviewed and indexed on PubMed.
• Video explainers: Sam Cavana (Taylor & Francis) underscored the rise of visual media, particularly among younger HCPs. Video explainers can be used to effectively demonstrate mechanisms of action and provide quick, engaging access to complex data.
• Traditional manuscripts: Erin Crocker (Real Chemistry) defended the traditional manuscript as the foundation of medical publishing. She argued that while alternative formats are valuable, they must be grounded in rigorous, peer-reviewed research.

The debate & final verdict

Following audience votes, AI and podcasts were eliminated first, followed by video explainers. The final debate centred on PLS versus traditional manuscripts. While PLS make scientific information more accessible, concerns were raised about maintaining scientific integrity in simplified formats. In the end, the traditional manuscript prevailed.

In her victory speech, Crocker acknowledged the value of integrating multiple formats to enhance scientific communication, advocating for a collaborative future where AI, PLS, podcasts, and videos complement, rather than replace, traditional manuscripts.

Erin Crocker acknowledged the value of integrating multiple formats to enhance scientific communication, advocating for a collaborative future where AI, PLS, podcasts, and videos complement, rather than replace, traditional manuscripts.

Interestingly, in a second running of this session, the audience reached a different conclusion, with PLS emerging as the winning format. This outcome highlights the evolving perspectives on how best to communicate scientific research in an increasingly digital world.

Making meetings better for all

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Inclusion isn’t just about making congresses accessible—it’s about fostering connection and belonging for all attendees.

Recognising that there is still room to improve inclusivity at congresses, this parallel session tackled a critical issue: making scientific meetings accessible to all. The session featured perspectives from experts who discussed the barriers attendees face and the steps needed to improve accessibility and engagements.

Patient perspectives

Matt Eagles (Havas Lynx) shared his personal experiences, emphasising the challenge of feeling connected to the scientific data presented at congresses. He pointed out that accessibility is not just about attending, but also about engaging meaningfully. He recounted how his Parkinson’s makes it difficult to stand for lengthy periods at poster sessions. Simple solutions, such as offering audio descriptions, could bridge this gap. With around one-quarter of the UK population having a disability or alternative needs, improving accessibility would benefit a significant proportion of attendees. Eagles also highlighted how inclusive seating arrangements, such as circular tables instead of rows, discourage segregation and fosters a sense of collaboration.

With around one-quarter of the UK population having a disability or alternative needs, improving accessibility would benefit a significant proportion of attendees

Charlotte Rowan (Caudex) expanded on the issue, noting that economic constraints are also significant barriers for many attendees. Hybrid meetings offer a partial solution, enabling broader participation. She also emphasised that providing logistical support, such as childcare and nursing rooms, could ensure that professionals with caregiving responsibilities can attend. Rowan stressed that organisers often “don’t know what they don’t know,” making it essential to involve diverse voices, including patients, in event planning.

The discussion also highlighted social considerations. Eagles shared how small acts, such as someone offering to get him food at a buffet, made a profound difference in his experience of inclusion. However, significant challenges still remain. Caregiver needs was highlighted as a substantial barrier. Few congresses offer free tickets or subsidies for caregivers, leaving some patients facing double the cost, or simply unable to attend.

What can we do?

Cate Foster (Oxford PharmaGenesis), an author of the ‘Good Practice for Conference Abstracts and Presentations’, discussed plans to update these guidelines to include ED&I considerations. The revised guidelines will address practical aspects such as poster accessibility, with easy-to-implement changes like positioning QR codes at a wheelchair-friendly height.

The ISMPP organisers themselves shared their efforts to integrate accessibility considerations into their event planning. This year, ISMPP offered captioning services, they chose venues with good transport links, and avoided major religious and national holidays. The patient support programme, which provides travel assistance to patient advocates, was another successful step towards inclusivity.

Stephen Cutchins (Cvent) highlighted the importance of seeing accessibility as an investment, not a cost. Thoughtful planning increases attendance and engagement, ultimately benefiting event organisers. While virtual and hybrid formats offer accessibility benefits, they lack the networking advantages of in-person meetings. Future improvements could include better virtual networking tools, such as avatars that simulate in-person interactions.

Keynote: the compass within: staying true to core values amidst chaos

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Our core values are shaped by stories we are told from childhood, but we must challenge our inherent beliefs to foster inclusivity—both in society and in AI development.

Wednesday’s keynote speaker Naomi Sesay, Head of Creative Diversity at Channel 4, discussed how we can stay true to our core values in a chaotic world, and explored how our morals can feed into AI.

How do we get our values?

Sesay believes that we’re hardwired to hear stories and they resonate whether we believe them or not. From childhood, we absorb our values through stories told to us at home, at school and by society generally. These stories can be the truth, half-truth, or even untrue, but we accept them through needing to belong to our community.

We’re hardwired to hear stories and they resonate whether we believe them or not. We absorb our values through stories told to us at home, at school and by society generally.

Challenging where truth comes from

Sesay highlighted that our understanding of the truth is based on Western education, but if we fail to seek knowledge from non-Western societies, we risk marginalising them to our detriment. For example, GraphCast is an AI global forecasting tool, which can predict global weather with immense accuracy but has difficulty predicting short-term changes in local weather. In contrast, indigenous communities around the world have developed systems of predicting local weather to a very high degree of accuracy. Could we learn something from them?  

Inclusivity is key for success

One ‘story’ Sesay pointed out that we are taught to accept is Darwin’s theory of evolution. We do not question his theory despite the fact that even he had doubts about certain aspects of it, and Sesay called to attention the original complete title of his famous book, On the Origin of Species: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”. She emphasised this as an example where we must question the stories we are told. We run with Darwin’s concept of ‘survival of the fittest’ in a ‘dog eat dog world’, whereas Sesay argued that nature works best in collaboration and harmony. Indeed companies that prioritise empathy and inclusivity allow their employees to stay true to their individual core values, and this feeling of inclusion fosters collaboration. She emphasised, however, that while companies and governments need to focus on inclusivity, the onus is also on the individual to evolve and challenge our core beliefs.

We need to teach AI inclusivity

“AI is not sentient yet. We are still in control, and we need to talk about ethics now.”

Focusing on how morals feed into a future where AI will become more a part of our world, Sesay highlighted that discriminatory ideas, which we absorb from the stories we are told from childhood, become imprinted in our neurology and are difficult to “unlearn”, much as riding a bike would be. Similarly, AI is currently a “toddler” and we need to be mindful that whatever we teach it now will be retained and impact how it learns. To illustrate this point, Sesay recalled how after giving AI a prompt to “create AI as a sentient being”, it generated a humanoid image with Caucasian features, seemingly by default. This, she believes, is due to AI being used predominantly by the Western world and shows that AI is already not representing all cultures and values equally. She reminds us, however, that AI is not sentient yet. We are still in control, and we need to talk about ethics now.        

Member research oral presentations

What about sex? A call to action for improved sex and gender reporting in industry-sponsored clinical research: results from a literature review

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Enhancing adherence to SAGER guidelines in industry-sponsored trials is crucial for improving the relevance of research findings.

Liz Southey (The Salve Health) shared findings from a study assessing sex and gender reporting in clinical research. Despite their influence on disease progression, treatment response, and healthcare access, these factors are often underreported in industry-sponsored trials—limiting the relevance and applicability of findings.

Just 37% of journals mentioned the SAGER guidelines, and key checklist items were largely overlooked.

The study reviewed articles published between 2023 and 2024 to assess adherence to the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines, introduced in 2016 to improve reporting standards. Of 252 screened studies, only 28 met the eligibility criteria. Alarmingly, just 37% of journals mentioned the SAGER guidelines, and key checklist items—such as defining sex and gender or analysing data by sex—were largely overlooked. Additionally, gender representation among authors was also imbalanced, with only 35% of identified authors being women.

These gaps in reporting risk exacerbating health disparities. For example, women in clinical trials experience twice the rate of adverse drug reactions compared to men, highlighting the need for better reporting of sex differences. Beyond health outcomes, the gender data gap also has significant economic implications. Research by the World Economic Forum suggests that closing this gap could unlock 75 million disability-adjusted life years and generate $1 trillion in annual global gross domestic product.

In closing, Southey emphasised the role of medical publication professionals in advocating for better reporting practices. Promoting awareness and adherence to SAGER guidelines can improve research inclusivity, making findings more applicable to diverse populations and ultimately enhancing healthcare outcomes.

Speaking with one voice: an integrated and innovative planning framework for clear and consistent communications

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Use of an Integrated Medical Communication Plan fosters collaboration, consistency, and alignment in pharmaceutical communications, improving message clarity and engagement with healthcare professionals.

Debra Mayo (Otsuka) addressed the challenges of fragmented pharmaceutical communications, emphasising the need for a unified voice. She introduced an Integrated Medical Communication Plan (IMCP)—a strategy designed to enhance collaboration, maintain consistency, and ensure alignment across teams.

Recent data from Sermo’s HCP Sentiment Series highlights the importance of targeted communication: 81% of physicians prefer relevant, personalised information, and 72% are more likely to engage with such communications. However, inconsistent messaging between medical affairs and commercial teams often creates confusion, reducing clarity and impact.

The IMCP framework is built on four key principles:

• Collaboration: breaking down silos to align messaging across teams.
• Consistency: maintaining a unified scientific narrative across all channels.
• Alignment: synchronising strategy and tactics through structured planning.
• Integration: prioritising strategic value and audience engagement.

To develop and implement the IMCP, a core committee identified key challenges, including siloed teams and inconsistent messaging. Their solution? A centralised platform for information access and knowledge sharing.

They also developed practical tools—spreadsheets, Power BI dashboards, and strategic lexicons—to streamline communication, reduce redundancy, and boost efficiency. At the centre of this initiative is the IMCP dashboard, a central hub where teams can track, update, and refine communication in real time.

The Integrated Medical Communication Plan dashboard is a central hub where teams can track, update, and refine communication in real time.

By embracing an integrated approach, pharmaceutical companies can enhance engagement with healthcare professionals, improve message clarity, and strengthen their scientific voice—ultimately fostering more effective and impactful communication.

A pilot study evaluating the performance of a custom-built large language model-based app that uses reporting guideline items to generate manuscript abstracts

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Conspectus, an AI-powered tool, enhances manuscript abstract preparation with accuracy and positive user feedback. Nonetheless, human validation remains essential.

Niall Harrison (OPEN Health) and colleagues, in collaboration with ARTEFACT, assessed whether Conspectus, a custom-built large language model (LLM)-based application that generates abstracts using reporting guidelines, could enhance the accuracy and appropriateness of manuscript abstracts.

Conspectus generated well-structured, accurate abstracts, and received positive user feedback, though human oversight remains essential.

The workflow followed a structured process:

• Manuscript upload: users upload a manuscript and set key parameters (eg, study type).
• Prompt generation: Conspectus creates a tailored prompt based on user input and relevant reporting guidelines.
• Prompt review: users review and refine the proposed prompt structure.
• Abstract drafting: Conspectus generates an abstract, which users then review and fact-check.

In this pilot study, users tracked their time and assessed usability, while reviewers evaluated abstract quality. The results were promising: 95% of users would recommend Conspectus, and 82% felt it improved abstract preparation. Adoption was swift—81% of users were ready to use Conspectus within 15 minutes, and 61% saw potential time savings. Accuracy was highest for results sections (98%) but lower for conclusions (78%). Appropriateness scores varied across sections, with 69% meeting expectations for introductions and 58% for results, highlighting the need for better prompt refinement and user training.

Limitations included lower accuracy for study types not well-represented in training data and analyses lacking dedicated reporting guidelines (eg, post-hoc clinical trial analyses). Improving briefing forms and prompt training could enhance performance, while future research should explore real-world applications and cases with greater time-saving potential.

How can we collaborate with authors to integrate AI in publication development?

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Transparency is essential when integrating AI into the publication process.

The role of generative AI in medical publications is evolving. In this session, industry, agency, and publisher panellists discussed practical tips for AI integration, with a little help from some artificial friends.

The agency perspective

Nina Divorty (CMC Connect) highlighted that the perspective of authors is critical, as they have final responsibility for the publication. Results from an audience poll showed that most participants had not yet used AI in collaboration with authors. Divorty recommended early communication and active discussion with authors to obtain agreement per ICMJE criteria, as well as to confirm the target journal and clarify their guidelines around AI use.

The publisher’s perspective

Stephanie Preuss (Springer Nature) introduced four AI-generated personas (created using video AI video platform Colossyan) to illustrate different author attitudes towards AI:

• The Anarchist: Pro-AI and experimental but may overlook guidelines.
• The Anxious: Wary of AI, deeply concerned about accuracy and ethics.
• The Apathetic: Lacks a deep understanding of AI but is agreeable to its use.
• The Conscious Collaborator: Informed, cautious, and committed to ethical integration.

These personas broadly conformed to attitudes that audience poll participants had encountered in the workplace. Preuss noted that although authors have raised concerns about declaring AI use in publications, many researchers are already using AI for tasks such as translation, fraud detection, and plain language summaries. Preuss stressed that AI cannot be listed as an author, that transparency is key, and there remains a need for “a strong human handshake in the centre”.

“There remains a need for a strong human handshake in the centre [of AI integration].”

The industry perspective

James Dathan (AstraZeneca) acknowledged the huge potential of AI, but that authors deserve transparency around the extent of AI’s contribution to the work, as well as rigorous proof of the technology’s efficacy, or lack thereof. On this last point, Dathan stressed that negative data is also important, that there may be situations where AI use is not appropriate, and that “just because we can doesn’t mean we should”.

Wrapping up, all the panellists agreed that transparency, integrity, and accountability were vital as we enter this exciting new era of integrating AI into the development of medical publications. Revealingly, cautious and curious were the two most frequently occurring words in an audience word cloud poll.

The role of a medical publication professional in 2035: redundancy by robots?

KEY TAKEAWAY

• In the next decade, the role of the medical publication professional may evolve significantly, but core values—ethical storytelling, transparency, research integrity, and effective content dissemination—will remain fundamental.

The future of medical publications: Embracing AI and upholding core values

In a session sponsored by Real Chemistry, moderator Mike Dixon (Healthcare Communications Association) guided participants through an exploration of the future role of medical publication professionals, focusing on how the integration of AI will shape their responsibilities. Reflecting on the past decade, Dixon prompted attendees to consider whether the fundamentals of their profession have shifted and how they might evolve by 2035.

Ann Gordon kicked off the discussion by addressing the potential day-to-day changes AI could bring and what professionals might seek from their roles in the future:

• AI integration: From the advent of conversational AI like ChatGPT in 2022 to the possibility of autonomous agents, AI is set to become integral to daily tasks.
• Technological advancements: The emergence of AI-powered tools, such as wearable devices providing instant information and portable virtual workspaces, will enhance storytelling capabilities and elevate data visualisation techniques.
• Evolving influencer profiles: Professionals will need to collaborate with digitally savvy opinion leaders who have significant influence in the digital and social media landscapes.
• Sustainability and accessibility: Utilising holographic technology for virtual meeting attendance can promote both sustainability and accessibility.

Gordon emphasised that while technology will evolve, core values like ethical storytelling, transparency, and unbiased information dissemination will remain constant. Medical publication professionals will play a crucial role in guiding healthcare providers toward trustworthy content.

Medical publication professionals will play a crucial role in guiding healthcare providers toward trustworthy content.

Considering the entry of Generation Alpha into the workforce by 2035, a poll revealed that most participants believe this cohort will experience digital fatigue and seek more human interaction to stay engaged and build strong working relationships.

Next up, Catarina Fernandes (Johnson & Johnson) offered a pharmaceutical industry perspective, highlighting potential future opportunities and challenges in areas such as job descriptions, technological adoption, evidence dissemination, and collaboration. Key takeaways included:

• Adaptability: Professionals must be flexible, adept with new data forms, and open to innovative dissemination methods.
• Ethical standards: Maintaining strict ethical standards involves ensuring transparency in research, upholding a robust peer review system, promoting inclusivity, avoiding bias, and fostering trust within the scientific community.

Hamish McDougall (Sage) discussed the publisher’s role in 2035, focusing on research integrity and content dissemination. McDougall noted that while content will become more flexible and audiences more diverse, the core responsibilities of publishers—ensuring research integrity and effectively disseminating content—remain unchanged.

Dixon concluded the session by stressing that while AI will not replace medical publication professionals, those unwilling to collaborate with AI may be surpassed by those who do.

Closing remarks, raffles, and poster awards

Chair of the Programme Committee, Mithi Ahmed-Richards, and Vice-chair, Catherine Elliott, concluded the 2025 European Meeting of ISMPP with reflections on this year’s theme, Core Values for an Integrated Age. They also announced and congratulated this year’s poster prize winners:

• Most Reflective of Meeting Theme: Characteristics of qualitative-based patient experience data publications in rare diseases, neuroscience, and oncology – Sarah Thomas, Oleks Gorbenko, Jacqui Oliver, Catherine Elliott, Simon R. Stones, Charles Pollitt
• Best Original Research & Most Visionary Research: Establishing a lay review panel to ensure medical research accessibility – Oleks Gorbenko, Nathalie Cannella, Marta Moreno, Geoff Kieley, David Gothard, Jo Gordon, Sarah Thomas
• Best Visual Communication: Speaking their language: Healthcare professionals’ use of plain language materials with patients – Isabel Katz, Alexa Holland, Hamish McDougall, Sarah J. Clements

Ahmed-Richards and Elliott extended their gratitude to the Meeting Programme Committee, presenters, sponsors, partners, and exhibitors for their contributions. Finally, they reminded attendees that registration is now open for the 21st Annual Meeting of ISMPP, taking place 12–14 May 2025 in Washington, DC.

Why not also read our summaries of Day 1 of the meeting?

——————————————————–

Written as part of a Media Partnership between ISMPP and The Publication Plan, by Aspire Scientific, an independent medical writing agency led by experienced editorial team members, and supported by MSc and/or PhD-educated writers.

——————————————————–

The 2025 European Meeting of the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) was held in London on 27–29 January. The meeting, which was themed ‘Core Values for an Integrated Age’, saw a record-breaking 418 delegates in attendance.

A summary of the first day of the meeting is provided below to benefit those who were unable to attend the meeting, and as a timely reminder of the key topics covered for those who did.

Summaries of the second day of the meeting can be found here.

Summaries of Day 1

Chair’s welcome, CMPP update and ISMPP presidential address

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Attendance and engagement at ISMPP EU continue to grow, reflecting an active and collaborative community of medical publications professionals.
• ISMPP’s core values are fundamental as the industry embraces innovation and integrates new technologies.
• The CMPP programme celebrates 15 years of excellence, with increased global representation and accessibility.

Mithi Ahmed-Richards (Taylor & Francis) opened the 2025 European Meeting of ISMPP, recognising the continued growth of the meeting with increasing numbers of abstract submissions and poster presentations. Acknowledging the collaborative spirit of the medical publications community, she emphasised how ISMPP and its members drive advancements in publication practices and ultimately improve patient care. Noting the meeting’s theme of Core Values for an Integrated Age, Ahmed-Richards stressed that trustworthiness surpasses skill and that core values must be demonstrated through actions.

Ann Gordon (Chair of the ISMPP Certification Board) provided an update on the Certified Medical Publication Professional (CMPP) programme, which is celebrating 15 years of professional excellence in medical publications this year. The CMPP community has grown to 1,659 professionals across 31 countries, spanning 6 continents, with South America most recently represented. Achievements in 2024 included the launch of the LearningBuilder certification platform, a significant rise in CMPP mentors, and enhanced accessibility through financial assistance for exam fees. Gordon reinforced the value of the CMPP credential in demonstrating expertise, leadership, and ethical publication practices.

Expanding on the meeting’s theme, Rob Matheis (ISMPP President and CEO) emphasised the importance of balancing core values with innovation, citing the need to consider evolving information sources beyond traditional medical journals. He outlined ongoing key initiatives of the society, including patient membership programmes, a renewed presence in the Asia-Pacific region, and the hosting of #MedComms Day. Matheis concluded with a call for members to actively engage in ISMPP activities to further strengthen the community of medical publication professionals.

Keynote: Finding core values in an integrated and sustainable world

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Andy Pag’s sustainable travel experiments highlight the power of incremental progress and the importance of clear communication in environmental advocacy.

Exploring sustainability: insights from Andy Pag’s adventures

Former BBC journalist and engineer Andy Pag shared his two-decade journey of pioneering sustainable travel. Though often labelled an environmentalist, Pag considers himself an experimenter seeking practical solutions.

Innovative expeditions

Pag’s first major sustainability experiment involved driving from London to Timbuktu in an old Land Rover powered by biodiesel made from waste chocolate. This was considered the first-ever carbon-negative expedition. He later organised the “Grease to Greece” rally, where participants scavenged waste vegetable oil from restaurants to fuel their cars, successfully completing the journey from London to Greece without fossil fuels.

Building on these experiences, Pag set out to travel around the world using sustainable transport. He restored an old school bus and adapted it to run on waste oil, successfully completing the journey while highlighting the potential of alternative fuels.

Lessons in communication

Pag transitioned from experimenter to advocate, emphasising the need for precise messaging. He cautioned that achievements, if not communicated thoughtfully, can be misinterpreted—an insight particularly relevant to medical publication professionals.

The Hero’s journey and scientific method

Pag drew parallels between the hero’s journey—a narrative arc involving a call to adventure, challenges, and transformation—and the scientific method. Both involve exploration, overcoming obstacles, and sharing newfound knowledge.

Trust and incremental progress

Throughout his travels, Pag learned to trust in the kindness of strangers, such as a voluntary military escort in Afghanistan. He advocates for celebrating small advancements in sustainability, recognising that incremental steps collectively lead to significant progress.

Personal choices for reducing carbon footprint

Pag suggests three actions: making sustainable lifestyle choices, supporting policies through voting, and fostering scientific literacy. His experiences serve as a testament to the impact of innovation, communication, and small steps in tackling environmental challenges.

Pag advocates for celebrating small advancements in sustainability, recognising that incremental steps collectively lead to significant progress.

Looking beyond traditional authorship: partnering with patients for inclusion in scientific conferences

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The role of the patient at scientific conferences has evolved, from exclusion to tokenism to leadership.
• Patients are not conference “guests”, but expert partners helping to shape the future.

The time has come to evolve beyond tokenism and acknowledge patients as experts in their own right.

The first plenary session of the day explored the evolution of patient participation in scientific conferences, from exclusion to tokenism to active leadership. One such leader is patient advocate Mercy Shibemba, who shared her experience of growing up with HIV and the associated stigma. She highlighted the principle of “Nothing for us without us”, and underscored that seminal campaigns such as Undetectable = Untransmissible would not have been possible without meaningful patient engagement.

Amanda Boughey (Envision Pharma Group) reflected on the evolution of patient engagement at ISMPP itself, noting the significant progress made since she started working in MedComms 20 years ago. However, challenges remain: results from an interactive quiz during Boughey’s presentation revealed that the biggest perceived barrier to patient involvement at scientific conferences is concerns around compliance.

Enter self-described “compliance nerd” Rina Newton (Code Clarity). Newton clarified some of the misconceptions surrounding patient participation at scientific conferences, for instance, while EU regulations prohibit direct-to-patient drug advertising, this does not preclude patients from attending conferences, where they may:

• learn about trial findings
• interact with other attendees
• engage with medical stands
• ask questions about medicines
• speak at symposia
• give advice on advisory boards.

Simon Stones (Amica Scientific) stressed the need for stakeholders to proactively argue for patient involvement at conferences, citing the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) congress as an example of good practice. Specifically, we should:

• move beyond tokenism—patients should not be viewed as congress “guests”, but as equal partners shaping the future
• invest in patient leadership
• build a culture of respect by normalising patient involvement
• measure impact.

It should be noted that patient-driven impact metrics may differ from conventional measures of success. Shibemba gave the example of a study of youth-friendly health services for people with HIV that failed to achieve its primary outcome (viral suppression), but was considered successful from the participants’ perspective as it demonstrated the importance of integrated health services.

Pascale Cavillon (Ipsen) explained Ipsen’s patient-driven approach starts with the “why”, using early engagement with patients to establish their unmet needs, before collaborating with patient communities to translate science into meaningful solutions. Cavillon highlighted initiatives such as immersive experience training for healthcare professionals to highlight the lived reality of rare disease.

All panellists agreed that the time has come to evolve beyond tokenism and acknowledge patients as experts in their own right.

Sustaining publication quality in a fast-paced world

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Fast-tracking publications should be reserved for cases of strong justification, and require early, meticulous planning across pharma teams, authors and journals to ensure success.

Expedited publications have become increasingly common, with timelines shrinking from the standard 6 months to as little as 1 month. However, maintaining publication quality requires careful planning, resource allocation, and compliance with Good Publication Practice (GPP) guidelines. During this plenary session, panel members Demetrios Michael (OPEN Health), Karen King (OPEN Health), Sandrine Hardouin (Alexion), Margarita Lens (UCB), Saurabh Gagangras (Novo Nordisk) and Sam Cavana (Taylor and Francis), discussed how to balance speed, quality and compliance when accelerating publication timelines.

Foundation setting

Gagangras likened expedited publications to a dance performance—months of preparation for a precise and rapid execution. Strategic alignment across internal teams is critical. Early engagement with key opinion leaders ensures they are committed to a highly responsive process, while upfront logistical planning—such as completing authorship agreements and pre-submission inquiries—helps avoid delays.

Medical writers should be onboarded early and cover across time zones should be considered. Pre-drafted shell manuscripts and mock figures can allow blinded investigators to review content before database lock. Clear contingency plans for different data outcomes can also help streamline the publication process post-readout.

Compliant author review

Maintaining compliance while expediting timelines requires a structured yet unconventional review process. The panel highlighted the importance of kick-off meetings that clearly define expectations and review timelines, ensuring authors can accommodate shortened deadlines.

The panel also discussed the utility of live review calls to resolve conflicting feedback, and securing calendar dates for these well in advance. Detailed meeting minutes can ensure transparency and compliance while maximising efficiency. Additionally, pre-selecting secondary journal options and understanding the required adaptations in case of rejection helps minimise delays to final publication.

Navigating journal liaison

Cavana provided a publishing perspective on the process. He emphasised that engaging with journals early can smooth the submission and peer review process, but challenges remain, especially in securing reviewers. Cavana advised attendees to consider their use of artificial intelligence (AI) carefully, as well as the adaptability of any potential digital extenders. Journal policies on these aspects can vary widely and might hinder publication or delay the process.

The exception, not the rule

There was unanimous agreement from the panel that expedited publications should remain reserved for cases with strong justification. Examples include areas of unmet needs, Phase III trials supporting regulatory submission, first-in-class drugs, or paradigm-shifting treatments. Fast-track publishing places significant demands on resources and may disrupt ongoing publication plans. Managing stakeholder expectations is also crucial to prevent unrealistic timelines from becoming the norm.

The role of AI

The panel highlighted emerging AI applications could assist the process in the future, and some success has already been demonstrated with plain language summaries (PLS). Other potential uses, such as automated reference management and data validation, are being explored but require further validation to ensure compliance with journal disclosure policies.

Conclusion: need for speed?

 Success in fast-tracking publications involves meticulous preparation, structured review processes, and effective stakeholder communication.

Success in fast-tracking publications involves meticulous preparation, structured review processes, and effective stakeholder communication. While they can accelerate data dissemination, substantial effort is required to balance speed with quality and compliance. It is critical that that these timelines are reserved for rare cases for which there is strong justification.

A discussion on use cases and the adoption of AI within a pharmaceutical, biotech or device company

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Insights from industry highlight AI’s potential to enhance efficiency, quality and value in MedComms.

James Wright (Bioscript Group) led a discussion on the adoption of AI in MedComms with panel members, Pippa Hadland (AstraZeneca), Tom Grant (UCB) and Swati Krishnan (Boehringer Ingelheim). The aim of the session was to further delegates’ understanding of how to use AI in MedComms, by providing insights from the industry perspective.

AI is all around us, but what is it?

Wright opened the session by explaining what AI is. Simply put, AI allows computers and machines to simulate human learning. Indeed, most of us already use AI in our everyday lives, through navigation systems such as Google Maps, virtual assistants, education, and personalisation of online shopping, social media, and online entertainment.

Generative AI can create original content (text, images, video, audio) in response to users’ prompts. Natural Language Processing brings computer science, AI and linguistics together, “enabling computers to understand, interpret, and generate human language in a meaningful and useful way”.

AI in MedComms: panel insights

Several key themes emerged as the panel shared their experiences of developing and using AI for MedComms:

• Use cases – examples of AI tools developed and utilised by panel members included predominantly “low security risk” deliverables such as systematic literature reviews, PLS, and a manuscript first draft proof of concept using published secondary clinical data.
• Efficiency – AI can free-up employees’ time for more strategic tasks while it does the heavy-lifting, eg, summarising large documents, researching new therapy areas, finding details quickly within large quantities of information, or even collating overarching views from 1000s of HCP’s comments in social media.
• Prompts – Wright emphasised that “we get out what we put in” to generative AI, and well-structured prompts are key. UCB have an app that helps with prompt development, and AI can even be prompted to suggest better prompts!
• Quality – while quality may be a common concern, panel members found comparable quality between AI- and human-generated content.
• Value – time-saving with AI may allow budgets to go further, meaning better value for money.
• Data security – maintaining zero risk to patient data, and transparency, are both vital. Security infrastructure around AI is still in its infancy, and represents a challenge, therefore most panel members developed AI tools in-house using closed systems, for “low-risk” projects.
• Industry/agency collaboration – logistical challenges around transparency and security mean that some panel members have kept AI use in-house, while others have formed successful partnerships with trusted vendors.
• Training – experience of AI training comprised a mixture of self-learning through experimentation and online resources, and structured learning through company courses.

AI can free-up employees’ time for more strategic tasks while it does the heavy-lifting. In the future it will likely move beyond low-risk projects to include proprietary data and a wider scope of deliverables.

 What does the future hold for AI in MedComms?

With many companies already testing out AI, in the future it will likely move beyond low-risk projects to include proprietary data and a wider scope of deliverables such as infographics or video content. If one thing is clear from this session, it is that AI in MedComms is here to stay.

Roundtable sessions

Attendees then had the opportunity to participate in roundtables, which covered the following topics:

• Shaping the future of publication metrics
• GenAI in the real world
• AI in scientific publishing: overcoming barriers and bridging perspectives across sectors
• Use of social media in an integrated age
• Inclusive innovation: building a more accessible future in medical education
• Improving publication strategies: bridging standard approaches with innovative, proven frameworks
• Demystifying the submission & guidance for standalone podcast & video articles and extenders
• Cross-publisher plain language article guidance: have your say
• What defines a publication as ‘best-in-class’?
• Strategies for integrated evidence generation throughout product lifecycle: role of the publication professional
• Unlocking omnichannel success: crafting scientific narratives tailored for audiences and persona
• Reformat or reform? Evolving manuscript submission processes to put science first
• Pursuit of parallel publication: potential benefits and current challenges of this growing practice
• Empowering patients in an integrated age: a multidisciplinary approach
• The people’s PubMed: empowering patients in the age of misinformation
• Leveraging AI beyond content creation: creating efficiencies and unlocking possibilities
• Intellectual property and ethical integrity in the digital age: safeguarding publications through collaboration and innovation
• ISMPP code of ethics update: sneak peek and discussion

Guided poster tours

Attendees also had the opportunity to attend guided poster tours of the following posters:

• Analysis of oncologists’ anticipation of and response to clinical data dissemination at ESMO 2023 and ESMO 2024
• Transforming poster metrics: a low-cost, privacy-preserving solution to measure engagement of posters
• Establishing a lay review panel to ensure medical research accessibility
• Practical recommendations for the wider implementation and reporting of sex-specific analyses in medical publications
• Sins of the father: current medical guidance based on retracted articles in the literature
• Beyond agreement: how is non-consensus handled in Delphi panels?
• A survey of the experience, motivations, and added-value of freelance medical writing professionals

Hackathon activity: shaping the future of GPP together!

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Industry-wide collaboration is essential for refining GPP, focusing on AI integration, patient authorship, real world evidence, and enhancing equity, diversity, and inclusion.

In this interactive session, attendees collaborated in groups to explore gaps in GPP 2022 guidelines and discuss key considerations for future GPP iterations, focusing on 6 key topics:

Advancements in AI

Discussions delved into the anticipated impact of AI on medical publishing by 2026. Key recommendations were to:

• define the balance between AI and human authorship, with explicit author agreements
• establish AI disclosure requirements and ethical risk assessments
• ensure AI compliance with confidentiality standards (open vs closed systems)
• adapt GPP guidance to keep pace with rapid AI evolution while maintaining professional oversight.

 Defining publication metrics

Participants examined the evolution of publication metrics, questioning whether existing measures effectively capture engagement and impact. The importance of identifying meaningful metrics, highlighting gaps, and ensuring accurate interpretations of publication success were highlighted.

Enhancing patient involvement

The best way to integrate patient involvement within GPP guidance was discussed. Key considerations included:

• whether to consolidate patient guidance in a dedicated section or distribute it throughout GPP
• establishing onboarding materials to support patient authors
• clarifying compensation terms to avoid legal and ethical conflicts
• ensuring patient involvement is meaningful and adds value to publications.

 Integrating real world evidence (RWE)

Challenges in publishing RWE studies include perception of lower impact, delayed relevance by the time of publication, and complex statistical analyses. Solutions proposed by participants were to:

• strengthen collaboration between RWE study teams and internal stakeholders
• incorporate RWE studies in early-stage research planning
• provide dedicated statistical expertise to ensure robust data analysis.

 Promoting equity, diversity, and inclusion

Discussions underscored the need to embed equity, diversity, and inclusion principles in GPP updates, and recommendations were to:

• use existing journal lexicons to ensure inclusive terminology
• advocate for regional representation in steering committees
• create a congress checklist to evaluate equity, diversity, and inclusion representation in medical meetings
• hold pharma companies accountable for diverse authorship selection.

 The expanding role of social media

Participants supported broader use of social media but stressed the need for clear, industry-wide guidelines on best practices and regulatory considerations.

Participants supported broader use of social media but stressed the need for clear, industry-wide guidelines on best practices and regulatory considerations.

Eline Hanekamp, co-author of the GPP 2022 guidelines, closed the session by emphasising the growing role of AI, the importance of patient involvement, and the evolution of publication metrics. The insights gathered at the Hackathon activity will be presented to the GPP steering committee for consideration when developing the next iteration of GPP.

Finding the story in data: blending data visualisation, storytelling techniques, and new trends while still upholding core values in medical publications (sponsored and presented by HCG)

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Effective storytelling and visualisation techniques enhance data comprehension, making complex information more accessible while maintaining scientific integrity and core values.

Tobias Sturt (Add Two Digital) delivered an insightful talk on the role of storytelling and data visualisation in effectively communicating complex information. The session explored how narrative techniques and visual structure can enhance data interpretation, particularly in medical publications, while ensuring adherence to scientific rigour and ethical standards.

The importance of storytelling in data

Sturt emphasised that the volume and complexity of data in the medical and scientific fields are increasing rapidly. Effective storytelling helps cut through this noise, making information more impactful, understandable, and retainable. Visual storytelling is not about manipulating data but about framing it in a way that clarifies meaning while upholding credibility and trust.

Additionally, he noted that while numbers alone present facts, they often fail to engage audiences. A well-structured story provides context, improving relatability and retention of information. This is particularly critical in medical publications, where complex data must be clearly communicated to diverse audiences.

Principles of data storytelling and visualisation

Understanding the audience’s background and expectations is crucial. Data should be structured like a narrative, focusing on key insights to prevent information overload.

Understanding the audience’s background and expectations is crucial. Data should be structured like a narrative, focusing on key insights to prevent information overload. Selection and emphasis ensure that only the most relevant findings are highlighted. While data itself is factual, effective communication evokes emotions that make information more memorable. Using visual structuring techniques such as contrast, positioning, and colour helps guide the viewer’s attention, ensuring clarity and engagement.

Sturt also stressed the need for progressive disclosure—gradually introducing layers of information rather than presenting everything at once. This allows readers to build understanding step by step, making even highly complex data sets more digestible. Balancing simplicity and depth is key to effective storytelling.

The process: find, design, make, refine

Sturt introduced a four-step methodology for data storytelling:

1. Find – identify the core message within the data.
2. Design – develop a visual framework to present the story effectively.
3. Make – create the actual data visualisation.
4. Refine – test and iterate to improve clarity and impact.

This process ensures that visual storytelling remains purposeful and effective, avoiding the common pitfall of overloading graphics with unnecessary elements that detract from the main message.

Applying visual storytelling in medical publications

Sturt concluded with practical applications for medical and scientific publications, highlighting the importance of maintaining core values such as transparency, accuracy, and ethical responsibility. He discussed ways to ensure clarity in figures and graphs, use infographics to summarise key findings, and adapt storytelling techniques to align with evolving publication formats while preserving scientific rigour.

He also emphasised the role of emerging technologies, such as interactive visualisations and digital platforms, in modern medical publishing. These tools offer new ways to engage readers and convey complex findings dynamically while maintaining the credibility that medical communication demands.

The power of data-driven storytelling

Combining storytelling with data visualisation makes complex medical data clearer and more engaging. Aligning these techniques with ethical standards maintains credibility. As data visualisation evolves, leveraging new storytelling methods while staying true to core values will be essential for enhancing the impact of medical communications.

Want to catch up on events from Day 2 of the meeting? You can read our summaries here.

——————————————————–

Written as part of a Media Partnership between ISMPP and The Publication Plan, by Aspire Scientific, an independent medical writing agency led by experienced editorial team members, and supported by MSc and/or PhD-educated writers.

——————————————————–

—————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Digital health technology has the capacity to greatly improve outcomes for patients, but several barriers must be overcome before its full potential is unlocked.
• Early and consistent patient engagement is critical for developing digital health solutions that meet patient’s needs and preferences.

Digital health is recognised by the WHO as an essential strategy for improving health outcomes, yet significant challenges exist that limit its adoption. In a recent commentary in Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, Popa et al highlight the clear unmet need for digital health solutions designed with patients for patients.

There is a clear unmet need for digital health solutions designed with patients for patients.

Barriers to delivering digital health solutions that truly meet patients’ needs

The group identified several barriers that stand in the way of digital health solutions fulfilling their potential to improve health outcomes:

• Low patient engagement. Many developers do not appreciate the value of adopting a patient-centric approach early and throughout development, with patient involvement often limited to beta-testing during later stages, and digital health solutions not reflecting patients’ needs.
• Fragmentation. Siloed initiatives developed by large numbers of stakeholders (not necessarily including patients) have created a complex, disconnected digital landscape.
• Inefficient regulation. Traditional regulatory systems lack the agility to effectively process fast-paced digital development.
• Poor data transparency. Poor transparency around data sharing contributes to mistrust and reduced adoption of digital health solutions by patients.
• No best practice. Lack of process for best practice sharing or formal validation has led to digital health solutions that are not properly vetted to match patients’ needs.
• Poor education. Insufficient patient education has led to reduced understanding among patients of how to access and engage with digital healthcare solutions.

Engaging patients to break down barriers in digital health development

The authors propose a strategy that places patient engagement at the heart of digital health development, as decision-making partners throughout the life cycle of digital health initiatives. They predict that this has the power to:

1. facilitate a more cohesive digital landscape following improved co-operation between developers and patients;
2. speed up regulation, with patient co-designers serving as integrators between digital and traditional regulatory processes;
3. improve data transparency by involving patient co-designers in data management plans that include FAIR and encourage data sharing;
4. deliver products that truly match patients’ needs;
5. enhance patient education through identification of relevant modes of communication.

Popa et al call for “early, meaningful, and sustained engagement” between digital developers and patients to ensure digital health solutions are aligned with patients’ needs and improve health outcomes.

————————————————– 

KEY TAKEAWAYS 

• Publishers should refine the development and distribution of plain language summaries of publication (PLSPs) to increase discoverability and accessibility for patients, thus increasing engagement.
• Involving patients in PLSP writing and peer review could increase awareness of PLSPs and improve their reach.

For patients seeking to understand their medical condition, deciphering complex scientific articles can feel like trying to read another language. To bridge this gap between ‘technical jargon’ and the needs of patients and the public, multiple publishers now offer plain language summaries of publication (PLSPs) – standalone peer reviewed articles that ‘translate’ a scientific paper for the non-specialist audience. However, PLSPs are only useful if they are read. In a recent article for the European Medical Writers Association (EMWA)’s Medical Writing journal, authors from publisher Taylor & Francis looked at the current level of patient engagement with PLSPs and what could be done to increase this.

How discoverable are PLSPs?

There are inherent challenges in trying to ensure that PLSPs are discoverable and accessible to patients, given that they are published in journals usually only read by expert audiences. For instance, the authors highlighted the following findings from a 2023 survey:

• Most patients discover PLSPs via Google (41%) vs PubMed (12%).
• Fear of misinformation means patients tend to trust personal recommendations or social media: 30% of patients find PLSPs via these routes.

In this context, it can be difficult for patients to even be aware of PLSPs. The authors suggest that publishers could make PLSPs more accessible and discoverable, and thus increase patient engagement, by:

• improving search engine optimisation (SEO) of PLSPs for traditional search engines, like Google
• distributing PLSPs to patient advocacy groups
• clearly providing multi-language translations of PLSPs to reach global patient audiences.

Integrate patients in PLSP development

Importantly, publishers can include patients in the process of PLSP development by:

• inviting patients to act as authors of PLSPs
• involving patients and caregivers in the peer review process.

This approach is supported by publishers and patients alike. As the publication of PLSPs grows in popularity, it is important that publishers nurture patient engagement at every stage of PLSP development.

As the publication of PLSPs grows in popularity, it is important that publishers nurture patient engagement at every stage of PLSP development.

————————————————–

The 20th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) took place once again in Washington, DC, from 29 April – 1 May with the theme ‘Storytelling: Its Art and Power’. Incorporating stories into medical publications can clarify complex ideas, build empathy, and establish trust, ultimately dispelling stigmas and misinformation. Over 700 attendees discovered the power of storytelling to unlock greater understanding in medical communications.

A summary of the second day of the meeting is provided below to benefit those who were unable to attend the meeting, and as a timely reminder of the key topics covered for those who did.

You can read our summary of Day 1 here, and our summary of Day 3 here.

Summaries of Day 2

Keynote: From numbers to narrative: a story in 5 parts

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Effective data visualisation makes data understandable and memorable.

Jenny Ghith (Pfizer) opened Day 2 by reading an artificial intelligence (AI)-generated poem, before introducing keynote speaker, Bill Shander, an information designer who helps turn data into compelling visuals through interactive experiences and storytelling. Shander started his presentation by showing an effective example of data visualisation, taken from The New York Times, explaining how the purpose of data visualisation is to make data understandable and memorable, even when the data are complex. He explored this concept further in 5 parts.

Part 1: data literacy

Data literacy is the ability to think about and use data. Numbers are meaningless without context, and it is therefore necessary to think critically before using data, by asking questions such as “Why am I doing this?” and “Why am I doing this in this way?” (something that Shander calls “useful paranoia”). It is also crucial to understand how data literate your audience is (or isn’t). A live poll of the audience revealed that approximately 70% of the attendees considered themselves to be data literate.

Part 2: storytelling

Shander went on to explain that after 50,000 years of evolution, human beings are “wired for stories”. Moreover, storytelling is an evolutionary imperative: we have to tell stories because stories are what people connect with.

Storytelling is an evolutionary imperative: we have to tell stories because stories are what people connect with.

The how of telling stories can be broken down into 3 ‘KWYs’ that help to set out the storytelling priorities:

• KWYDIS: Know What Your Data Is Saying
• KWYANTH: Know What Your Audience Needs To Hear
• KWYRWTS: Know What You Really Want To Say

Part 3: design thinking

Design thinking (ie, how to design) can be broken down into the following stages: empathise → design → ideate → prototype → test. Of these, the most important stages are empathy and testing: you first need to understand your audience, before creating a visual and testing whether it works.

Part 4: design/visualisation best practice

Most people are not trained in how to choose the most appropriate type of chart when presenting data, so the first step is to be clear about what you want your audience to see. Once this is decided, there are free tools available to help choose the best chart type for the job, such as those produced by the Financial Times. The most important thing is to be clear about what you want the chart to do. Effective design is all about information hierarchy (ie, “this is more important than that”). It is also important to be aware of pre-attentive processing: the way in which we subconsciously process visuals before actively paying them attention. To this end, design should be simplified to draw attention to the part that matters most, removing information that is not needed, and using annotation to improve understanding.

Design should be simplified to draw attention to the part that matters most, removing information that is not needed…

Part 5: examples

Shander ended by presenting more examples of effective data visualisation, explaining that the best data storytelling is currently being done in journalism (eg, by the graphics teams of The New York Times and Financial Times). He advocated following such examples when embarking on data visualisation. Other useful information and resources are available at billshander.com and What Data Visualization Books Should I Read?

AI MythBusters: how to counter misinformation in medical communications

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Generative AI will not replace medical writers as human input and subject matter expertise are needed to ensure accuracy in AI-generated outputs.

Todd Parker (MedThink SciCom), Dheepa Chari (Pfizer), Ken Truman (MedThink SciCom), and Tim Mackey (University of California San Diego, S-3 Research, JMIR Publications) led an engaging panel session on the current state and future trends of AI in medical communications, covering common myths, misperceptions, and misinformation about AI, and approaches to adopting AI in medical communications.

Myth 1: generative AI will take my medical writing job

Generative AI has the potential to create content quickly and efficiently, particularly for repetitive content-generation tasks. However, it is a language-based, not knowledge-based model, and human input will always be required to provide context and scientific perspective. Pharma companies are exploring the use of generative AI to develop first drafts for different types of content followed by scientific context and editorial review steps. AI may elevate the medical writing function and allow writers to focus on other aspects of medical communications. An analogy is that Microsoft Excel and financial management software did not replace bookkeepers but freed their time to focus on the higher cognition and more creative aspects of the job.

Microsoft Excel and financial management software did not replace bookkeepers, but freed their time to focus on the higher cognition and more creative aspects of the job.

A live polling question found that most attendees considered the myth busted and the panel agreed, summarising that generative AI cannot replace the expertise or creative writing provided by medical writers who produce highly complex material, although medical writers using generative AI are more likely to replace those who do not.

Myth 2: generative AI can’t be trusted due to ‘hallucinations’ or bias

Generative AI models can be biased and are only as good as the training data. Hallucinations occur not due to ‘system bugs’ but by design, because AI models operate on probabilistic mechanisms, aiming to produce statistically plausible text. AI tools are powerful but not 100% accurate or reproducible, which emphasises the importance of managing expectations and applying verification steps.

Bias is inherent in the process of prompting, while internal validity of AI outputs is challenging if different answers are created by the same prompt. Furthermore, data within the AI models can be inherently biased, reflecting historical or social inequalities. Overall, data put into the system should be verified to ensure it is free of bias. Another challenge is the limited availability of training data from non-English language sources. A regulatory framework may need to be established for responsible prompt engineering.

A live polling question found that most attendees considered this myth plausible or confirmed.

AI tools are powerful but not 100% accurate or reproducible, which emphasises the importance of managing expectations and applying verification steps.

Myth 3: only those with deep technical expertise can craft the perfect prompts to achieve desired outcomes with AI

The ChatGPT user interface is very accessible and user friendly, but prompt engineering can be difficult and changes over time. Some prompt engineering experience is required to provide desired inputs and outputs. Crafting the right prompt requires a lot of time, practice, and patience. In addition, to check the quality and accuracy of the outputs, and to avoid misinformation, a level of knowledge is required via collaboration with interdisciplinary experts at different stages (eg, medical writers, medical directors, and data scientists).

Crafting the right prompt requires a lot of time, practice, and patience.

The widespread introduction of personal computers in the 1990s/2000s meant that people had to embrace and adapt to them in the workplace, and we are now dependent on this type of technology to function. The panel proposed that AI will be increasingly used and, over time, we will evolve and learn to create better outputs from generative AI.

While the panel considered this myth busted, a live polling question found that most attendees considered it to be plausible.

ISMPP Artificial Intelligence Task Force: removing barriers to confident AI use

KEY TAKEAWAY

• As AI use increases, education on its use is needed to build confidence and fully realise the benefits AI can bring.

Following the release of the ISMPP AI position statement in 2023, an ISMPP U webinar revealed there were still significant barriers to the use of AI. In this session, Jason Gardner (Real Chemistry), Matt Lewis (Inizio Medical), Monica Elmore (AbbVie), Keith Goldman (AbbVie), Sonja Krane (American Chemical Society Publications), and Jay Patel (Cactus Communications) explored these barriers and potential strategies to overcome them.

AI: where are we now?

Lewis summarised the state of the art, noting that everyday use of AI within the industry is increasing, particularly for certain tasks such as the development of plain language summaries (PLS). Lewis expects AI use to continue to increase, predicting that by the end of next year, AI would be factored into every major aspect of the scientific communications industry. Whereas the sentiment around AI in the past was fear, now there was a mix of scepticism but also acceptance, with many organisations actively embracing it.

What are the barriers to AI as a medical writer?

Elmore summarised the major barriers she has encountered in her work as a medical writer:

• Lack of quality materials to feed into AI: The available starting information may not be appropriate or sufficient to produce the output required.
• Lack of efficiency: As it takes time and skill to develop a prompt, the investment that goes into this process may not be worthwhile for niche projects, where the prompt is unlikely to be used elsewhere.
• Lack of trust: Due to AI hallucinations, effort is required to check the output to not only ensure that it is accurate but also that it aligns with strategy and author preference.

Strategies to overcome barriers

To overcome barriers in adopting AI, Goldman suggested involving AI sceptics early in the process, as once they can see how AI can work for them, they will encourage others to get on board. Allowing individuals to use external tools was also important to gain confidence, but appropriate guardrails should be set, such as only using publicly available data. Prompt engineering training was another way to build confidence, as was using appropriate metrics to show whether the tool was making the process faster, less expensive, or more accurate.

What are the considerations for companies thinking about adopting AI?

With the explosion of apps that are available for different AI solutions, Lewis encourages a healthy sense of curiosity and experimentation but recommends companies consider whether the proposed tools align strategically in terms of resource and appropriateness. The ever-evolving AI technology also raises security considerations, so constant interactions with IT, compliance, and/or governance partners is required.

What are the implications of AI for publishing?

Krane described that from a publisher’s perspective, maintaining the accuracy and integrity of published literature is the main concern, and that transparency around the use of AI is key. Copyright remains a complicated issue, as it is unclear whether the output from generative AI belongs to the AI provider or the user who enters the prompt, but she expects to see regulation addressing this aspect soon. With regards to the use of AI during the peer review process, Krane emphasised the importance of reviewers understanding the publisher-specific guidance as these can vary greatly.

How can we work within the industry to build confidence in AI?

Patel described how coordinating with other stakeholders, including authors, institutions, sponsors, publishers, and journals, to align AI policies will be important, as currently the guidance across sectors is inconsistent. Other suggested strategies for building confidence included educating authors and contributors on the use of AI, education on better prompting, providing evidence that these tools work as effectively as is suggested, and remaining diligent about reviewing outputs for accuracy.

Lewis closed the session by emphasising that the goal is now augmented intelligence, a human-centred partnership model of people and AI working together to enhance cognitive performance.

If we work along with AI, the benefits can be quite profound.

Beyond words: deploy art, science, and innovation into visual storytelling in scientific publications and medical communications

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Storytelling is a powerful behavioural science tool for sharing new ideas and information.
• Visual storytelling increases impact and cuts through the noise – a powerful story is more likely to be interpreted by people in the same way.

In this session, Melanie Sobczyk (Novartis), James Duggan (Envision Pharma Group), and Oliver Brant (Envision Pharma Group) explored the influence of behavioural science in medical communications, and how visual storytelling can be used to amplify understanding and memorability, as well as improve the impact of publications and other materials.

Behavioural science behind storytelling

Humans are hardwired (both subconsciously and consciously) for storytelling. Stories in medical communications are generally used to raise awareness and knowledge and to change behaviour. The quality of the story and the interpretation by the audience are the most critical elements – an engaging story is more likely to achieve your objectives.

We ideally want the story to drive awareness or change, and subsequently lead to retention and the audience sharing the story with others.

Incorporating visual storytelling in medical communications

Recent physician surveys found that they are interested in learning about the latest trials, treatments, or procedures but are feeling overwhelmed with the amount of information they have to keep up with. Visual storytelling can be used to help cut through the noise and make the information more digestible more quickly. The 4 fundamental building blocks of visual storytelling are:

• images – images can communicate a large amount of information
• composition/layout – using visual hierarchy and other aspects of composition to draw attention to specific elements
• typography – font choices can be used to improve legibility/clarity and indicate personality/mood
• colour – different colours can be used to draw attention or convey a specific mood.

The panel moved on to discuss 4 areas where there were opportunities to incorporate visual storytelling into medical communications:

• Journal design: Data suggest that articles with visual abstracts increase dissemination of scientific articles, with 8 × more shares on social media and 3 × more visits to the original article compared with articles without a visual abstract.
• Data visualisation: The panel proposed finding the middle ground between different schools of thoughts for data visualisation, so that the data are presented accurately and transparently without alteration but also with a clear narrative of communication to help drive consensus.
• Beyond the journal: Publication extenders (eg, videos and podcasts) can expand the breadth and depth of the story in a publication; they can also be used to produce materials tailored to specific audiences.
• Embracing AI: AI-generated images can be used to reduce the time to develop ideation/mood boarding and subsequent briefs to a graphic artist.

Data, discourse, and dynamics: an observational study of medical writing and recommendations to shape the future of the medical writing process

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Storytelling, creativity, and dealing with uncertainty were key concepts identified in this novel study of the working practices of medical writers.

A first-of-its-kind observational study of medical writing that aimed to analyse how medical writing teams actually work was the topic for this session. The study employed the Topsight research methodology, an approach used to explore information flow in organisations. Seven manuscripts involving 38 medical writing team members were followed over 12 months. Dana Fox (Caudex), Gary Burd (Caudex), and Lenny Grant (Syracuse University) discussed the themes emerging from the analysis.

Storytelling, creativity, and collaboration

Medical writers described the writing process as turning complex data into a bespoke story, incorporating a beginning, a middle, and an end, key takeaway messages for clinicians, and a compelling flow. Medical writing was perceived as a creative (or co-creative) process, with writers stressing the central importance of collaborating effectively with authors throughout the development of a manuscript. Authors’ initial thoughts are connected to the big picture, and first drafts produced to provide an arena where authors’ aims and ideas are worked out in detail.

The medical writing process turns complex data into a bespoke story, incorporating a beginning, a middle, and an end, key takeaway messages for clinicians, and a compelling flow.

The uncertainty problem

Some of the obstacles to achieving conceptual clarity and effective storytelling reported by writing teams included authors sometimes not providing a strong sense of a manuscript’s purpose, or its intended audience. This could lead to writers feeling that they were aiming at a moving target. Medical writers also struggled with deficiencies in source materials, such as incomplete or inaccurate clinical study reports, missing references, or complicated figures. These were all additional barriers to reaching clarity, purpose, and flow.

Dexterity and technology

Medical writers described working practices that boosted productivity and improved cooperation. Team cohesion creates a safe space in which questions could be asked with confidence. Writers had developed various strategies to make efficient use of their time, such as completing small routine tasks as they waited for meetings to begin. Writers also made effective use of computer hardware and software, such as using multiple monitors at once and developing customised templates. These working practices may be shared across teams and embedded in training.

Next steps

The study of medical writing is a nascent discipline. This study opens new possibilities for teaching scientific communication, collaborative writing, and digital writing to students. It also creates a precedent for future studies in this field, such as investigations into author-client-agency writing processes, author team dynamics, and the use of AI throughout the manuscript development process.

Guided poster tour

On Day 2, the guided poster tour featured 4 posters covering the theme of Medical Writing Practices:

• Association of medical writing support with time to publication
• Faster, better, pricier? An analysis of factors associated with higher manuscript development hours
• How to COPE with integrity in scientific publications? The narrative unfolds
• The impact and adoption of accessible presentation designs: real-world experiences using templates to improve accessibility

What’s a “good” journal anyway?

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Established journal metrics such as the Journal Impact Factor do not provide the whole picture. Instead, a more nuanced approach that includes quantitative and qualitative factors should be used to evaluate journals.

In this session sponsored by Digital Science, Michael Taylor (Digital Science) discussed the qualities of a good journal and how data science can be used to generate qualitative insights on journal selection using quantitative data.

Taylor began by arguing that using single metrics in isolation to evaluate journals can be misleading. Using the example of the Journal Impact Factor, he described how established metrics often only serve to reinforce the past. The prestige of ‘top tier’ journals allows them to publish important and highly citable review articles that boost the journal’s impact factor – and prestige – further.

A more holistic and data-driven approach could offer a more nuanced and informative way to evaluate journals.

Instead, rather than relying solely on individual metrics, a more holistic and data-driven approach could offer a more nuanced and informative way to evaluate journals, with Taylor offering the following as some alternative approaches to gaining qualitative insights from quantitative data:

• Consider a wider range of data points: Look beyond citation counts to include usage data, altmetrics, and information about a journal’s role within its community.
• Make greater use of open access data: Utilise the growing availability of open access data to get a more comprehensive picture of a journal’s reach and influence.
• Understand editorial policies: Be aware of how a journal’s editorial policies might influence the types of research published, potentially affecting metrics indirectly.

“…AND THEY LIVED HAPPILY EVER AFTER”: building a brighter future for people and planet by placing sustainability at the heart of medical communications

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Medical communications professionals have a responsibility to build a more sustainable future through how we work, the work that we create, and the practical actions we take.

Taking action to improve sustainability in medical communications is critical to build a better future for industry professionals, stakeholders, and the planet. Catherine Skobe (Pfizer), Gary Burd (Caudex), Jackie Marchington (IPG Health), Mario Gaspari (Pfizer), Rebecca Douglas (IPG Health), and Rhiannon Meaden (Complete HealthVizion) explored the breadth of sustainability, from the wellbeing of people to protecting the planet.

Achieving sustainability through our work

Skobe and Burd explained how digital transformation is helping to improve both social sustainability (through more social engagements, enhancing equality, and promoting healthcare empowerment) and environmental sustainability (through factors such as reduced travel and printing). However, they cautioned that new digital technologies, such as generative AI, can also have a negative impact on environmental sustainability via their high carbon footprint. Further, remote working may adversely impact social sustainability through fewer casual interactions and fewer opportunities for passive learning.

They emphasised that sustainability of medical publications may be enhanced through re-use and repurposing. Examples include:

• use of PLS and enhanced publication content
• repurposing information into medical affairs materials
• translating materials into native languages (eg, using AI)
• provision of up-to-date, easily accessible publication repositories, with peer-reviewed publications at their hub.

The experts noted the importance of improving accessibility to information and resources, highlighting open access publishing (eg, through initiatives like OpenPharma) as a main driver for catering to a diverse audience.

Achieving sustainability through our business

Marchington and Gaspari went on to describe the value of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles in guiding sustainable working practices across the industry. Common values and close alignment of ESG principles are needed among stakeholders to maintain high standards and compliance, as is continued financial investment and use of metrics to monitor external validity for sustainability and progress. A uniform standard for ESG across the industry would be helpful.

Achieving sustainability through our people

Douglas discussed how to support sustainability among medical communication professionals. She emphasised 3 core values for achieving workplace sustainability:

1. Supporting talent diversity and inclusion
2. Investing in learning and development (eg, through continuous professional development)
3. Inspiring sustainability mindsets and values (eg, through use of targeted support and flexible learning approaches)

Meaden summarised the session, stressing that any action, no matter how big or small, can make a difference in achieving a socially and environmentally sustainable future for the healthcare communications industry.

Any action, no matter how big or small, can make a difference in achieving a socially and environmentally sustainable future for the healthcare communications industry.

Is peer review fit for the future?

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Peer review in medical publishing must evolve to adapt to the volume of manuscript submissions that is placing a considerable burden on the current system.
• Improvements to quality, transparency, diversity, and efficiency of the peer review process, including adoption of new technologies, could ensure that peer review remains fit for the future.

In this panel session, Richard Sever (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory), Susan Cuozzo (GSK), Laura Dormer (Becaris Publishing), and Richard Davis (ApotheCom) discussed the role of peer review and whether this cornerstone of the medical publishing model in its current form can meet the demands of the future.

Sever opened the session with an introduction to the peer review process and the fundamental role it plays in assessing a manuscript submission. Understanding how peer review assesses the relevance, scientific soundness, novelty, quality, and impact of research is key to any further discussion on what the peer review process may look like in the future.

Understanding how peer review assesses the relevance, scientific soundness, novelty, quality, and impact of research is key to any further discussion on what the peer review process may look like in the future.

Challenges to the peer review system

Cuozzo outlined some of the challenges faced from a publications manager’s perspective during peer review:

• Impact on publication timelines: Responding to extensive peer review comments can take a significant amount of time, extending time to publication.
• Out-of-scope requests: Reviewers can request additional analyses that may not be in scope of a given study or publication, further delaying publication.
• Conflicting comments: Contradictory comments from reviewers may require further clarification to navigate the response process.

Finding qualified peer reviewers can also be difficult, with several factors contributing to the bandwidth available in the peer review process:

• Peer reviewers are volunteers, often providing their time for free and in addition to full-time jobs.
• It is time consuming to provide the careful analysis required for a thorough peer review.
• There are often additional responsibilities associated with being a peer reviewer, such as attending editorial board meetings, and contributing to review and opinion pieces.

Finally, from the publisher’s perspective, peer review can present significant challenges relating to:

• growth in manuscript submissions – the ever-growing number of manuscripts to review makes it harder to find sufficient qualified reviewers, can induce fatigue amongst existing reviewers, and ultimately increases review times
• balancing speed versus quality – the need for speed can make thorough review difficult, potentially leading to publication errors and/or retractions
• trust in the peer review process – there are concerns regarding bias, reproducibility, insufficient transparency in the process, and a lack of diversity among the pool of peer reviewers
• emerging technologies – new technologies could ultimately be beneficial to peer review, but require appropriate policies in place and guidance to reviewers to ensure proper implementation.

How to improve peer review

Dormer outlined possible strategies for addressing the challenges to the current model of peer review, referring to four schools of thought described in a recent publication in Learned Publishing:

• Quality & Reproducibility: providing reviewers with the tools and training to effectively evaluate the quality of research
• Democracy & Transparency: ensuring that the peer review process is transparent, democratic, and that there is appropriate accountability
• Equity & Inclusion: fostering a more diverse pool of peer reviewers to make research equitable and inclusive
• Efficiency & Incentives: streamlining the peer review process to improve its efficiency and incentivise reviewers to participate.

Making science emotionally accessible for patients and caregivers: what to say and how to say it

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Making science emotionally accessible can help patients and their caregivers make better and more informed decisions about their healthcare.

While there has been a push toward improving medical communications for non-experts through use of more patient-friendly language, publication professionals have not focused on making scientific data emotionally accessible. Shannon Lake (patient advocate, Arthritis Foundation), Pamela Sinicrope (MedVal/PharmaWrite), and Jeff Stumpf (MedVal) looked at how to make medical information more emotionally accessible for patients and caregivers.

Patient journey

Lake shared her journey of navigating medical information during her various illnesses, spanning from childhood to the present day. She underscored the importance of being able to access readily understandable information. She believes that improved health outcomes and expectations may be achieved for patients through:

• provision of better and more accessible information and education
• active engagement with other patients and caregivers
• fostering good relationships with healthcare professionals.

Patients and their caregivers can gain control over their illness and make more informed choices about their care through:

• validation – accepting the diagnosis
• education – collaborating on the treatment plan
• empowerment – executing the plan.

Role of emotion in patient engagement and activation

After hearing about what is important from a patient’s perspective, Sinicrope explored the role of emotion in patient engagement and activation. The Patient Health Engagement (PHE) Model was introduced as a road map for communication tailored to the emotional, cognitive, and information needs and preferences of the patient. It was stressed that better connection with patients and improved health outcomes may be achieved through more empathetic and compassionate medical communications. Medical communication professionals can connect with patients by:

• providing patient-orientated materials, eg, PLS, infographics
• using inclusive language to acknowledge the ‘lived experience’
• collaborating with patients to highlight outcomes that matter most to them
• using empathy and compassion in all written communications
• making complex research accessible to non-experts.

Through more compassionate communications, it may be possible for patients to achieve better health outcomes and become more empowered in their own healthcare.

Through more compassionate communications, it may be possible for patients to achieve better health outcomes and become more empowered in their own healthcare.

Translating compassion to medical communications

In the final presentation of the session, Stumpf described practical approaches to translating compassion to medical communications. Suggested strategies for more compassionate patient-centric communications included:

• improving accessibility by making plain language ‘plain’, ie, targeting the correct reading level
  • tools to simplify language include the CDC’s Plain Language Thesaurus for Health Communications, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (available through various online sources and MS Word), and AI (eg, ChatGPT)
• using simple infographics that align with the storytelling
• making patient communications credible by providing the data and source references
• using patient-first and destigmatising language
• directly engaging with patients to ascertain the correct level of complexity of communications, what they need to know, and what is important to them.

Stumpf summarised the session with a quote:

“Giving patients and healthcare providers everything they need to make the best decisions about their healthcare — that’s our job!” – Jeff Stumpf

Mastering the CMPP journey: a practical interactive session

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Celebrating 15 years of the ISMPP CMPP certification, the society’s professional qualification is more accessible than ever. A new online tool being introduced in 2025 will also streamline the recertification process for existing CMPP holders.

The Certified Medical Publication Professional (CMPP) credential signifies a holder’s proficiency, experience, and commitment to excellence in the medical publications profession. In this session, a faculty comprising Dana Fox, Sharon Blimm, Faith DiBiasi, Ann Gordon, and Claudia Piano explored the value of the CMPP credential, described how to apply and prepare for the CMPP exam, and looked at how existing CMPPs can obtain recertification.

The value of CMPP certification

CMPP certification allows medical publications professionals to formally recognise their:

• expertise within the profession
• proficiency in good publication practices
• commitment to ethical and transparent data dissemination standards
• leadership in upholding and fostering integrity and excellence in medical publications.

The CMPP exam

Eligible candidates can choose to take the CMPP exam during March or September each year, and have the option to take the test at a Pearson VUE testing centre or online. The panel discussed the format of the exam and the requirements for taking it, before detailing the wealth of resources available online to assist candidates with their preparation for the exam. The CMPP Mentor Program was also highlighted, which matches a candidate with a qualified mentor who can support them through the certification process.

CMPP recertification

To keep their certification up to date, CMPPs can choose to recertify either by passing the CMPP exam during the last year of their current certification period or by obtaining sufficient continuing education (CE) credits. The panel discussed the types of activities that count towards CE credits and resources to find preapproved CE activities. Lastly, the faculty introduced the new ISMPP LearningBuilder platform to be launched in 2025, which will provide an easy and convenient tool to track CE credits and streamline the recertification process.

The ISMPP CMPP certification signifies a holder’s proficiency, experience, and commitment to excellence in the medical publications profession.

Member research oral presentations

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• AI successfully interprets how citing articles describe a clinical trial publication with adequate sentiment and context and could be a valuable addition to conventional publication metrics.
• Bespoke AI technology saves medical writers time and effort and helps their work to be understood by a broader audience without any degradation of accuracy.
• Inclusion of narrative elements linked to effective storytelling was associated with increased influence of review articles. Authors and publishers should explore ways to incorporate a more narrative style of writing.

Gary Burd (Caudex) introduced 3 oral presentations selected from a record-breaking 96 abstract submissions. Research was presented by Tomas Rees (Oxford PharmaGenesis), Walter Bender (Sorcero), and Stephen Towers (Healthcare Consultancy Group). All accepted abstracts are published in Current Medical Research and Opinion.

An AI approach to analyse the context of publication citations

Rees reminded us that, in addition to their generative abilities, AI models are a powerful analytical tool. A study of 100 Takeda-sponsored articles assessed the ability of AI models to help us summarise and understand what is being written about a clinical trial publication.

In addition to collating sentiment and location, the large language model could provide various levels of narrative summary and was able to explain its rationale for classifying statements as positive/neutral/negative.

The AI model demonstrated understanding of context: “treatment X was associated with minimal weight change, which is considered favourable and aligns with its safety profile”.

Rees concluded that similar approaches are widely applicable and could support insight analysis relating to a wide variety of questions and content sources (eg, news articles).

Examining the time- and effort-saving utility of tailored AI-tooling for abstract plain language summary development

Bender began by highlighting research showing that the scientific community is failing in its goal to reach patients with communications that are concise and easy to understand. The research presented by Bender aimed to assess if AI can help medical writers produce PLS, and if the output differs from content produced without AI assistance.

Bespoke AI assistance significantly reduced the time taken to write PLS by 41% versus writing without AI assistance. Bespoke AI assistance also made PLS easier to write, with the non-AI method requiring 20% more effort and the non-bespoke AI method requiring 16% more effort to complete versus the bespoke AI approach. AI-assisted PLS abstracts more accurately reflected the original scientific abstract than those written without AI assistance.

AI helped writers shape content to more effectively reach the intended target audience – the patient.

The most important finding, highlighted by the authors, was that AI-assisted PLS were the most suited for explaining research findings to patients based on content clarity. AI-assisted PLS had better readability than PLS written manually. Furthermore, AI-generated text not edited by a writer was easiest to read, achieving the often-recommended 8^th grade reading level for PLS. In conclusion, AI helped writers shape content to more effectively reach the intended target audience – the patient.

Using storytelling to communicate complex science: a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the narrative properties of journal articles on genetic medicines

Towers presented the results of a pilot study that aimed to characterise the degree of narrativity in articles on genetic medicines and assess if a more narrative style increased the influence of the articles.

The study of 1,018 primary articles and 127 review articles used text analysis software to assess the structure of the articles’ abstracts regarding 3 narrative processes (staging, plot progression, and cognitive tension) and compared this to the typical story structure such as that of a novel or movie script. The article abstracts generally had low narrativity relative to conventional story structure, although review articles scored higher than primary articles.

The second phase of the analysis assessed the presence of an additional 11 narrative elements thought to underlie effective storytelling (including elements such as first-person narration, narrative hooks, emotional tone, and recommendation). Over 50% of abstracts contained an attention-grabbing hook in the title or first 3 sentences, and around a quarter included recommendations from the authors. Review article abstracts scored significantly higher for the presence of emotional tone compared than primary article abstracts.

Although a small pilot study, its findings suggest there is room to include more narrative elements in primary/review articles.

Debunking neuromyths: a neuroscience-based approach for more effective storytelling

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Understanding the many ways that people learn and reducing cognitive load is essential for effective scientific storytelling.

Emily Messina (IPG Health Medical Communications), Nathalie van Havre (American Society of Hematology), Mike Morrison (Curvenote), and Juliet Bell (Excerpta Medica) led a thought-provoking session debunking ‘neuromyths’ and exploring a neuroscience-based approach for effective storytelling.

Debunking ‘learning style’ neuromyths

The session began with an insightful introduction to neuromyths by Messina. Neuromyths are common misconceptions about the brain. For example, we all use both parts of our brain, despite the myth that people are either ‘logical left-brained’ or ‘creative right-brained’. Science requires logic but is also inherently creative: creativity is needed to devise new questions to ask and methods to interrogate those questions. Interestingly, most delegates classified themselves as visual learners. Messina was quick to counter this finding by asking, if we are not auditory learners, then how can so many of us perfectly recite a song from our childhood? In a nutshell, learning is more complex than Visual-Auditory-Kinaesthetic learning styles.

How can we learn?

Next up, van Havre introduced the forgetting curve model of memory, which shows the decline of memory retention over time if no effort is made to maintain it. To learn, we need to modify the forgetting curve. van Havre gave 2 examples of how a presenter might achieve this:

• eliminate non-essential information from presentation slides
• include a story to foster emotional significance.

Concluding, van Havre introduced the importance of metacognition: the theory that people learn better when they have knowledge of what they will be learning, how they will learn, and how they will monitor their learning. For example, increased awareness of one’s thought process can lead to better critical thinking.

Increased awareness of ones thought process can lead to better critical thinking.

Cognitive load theory and universal design

Morrison began the next section with the idea that cognitive load can be reduced simply by depolarising less important information. Two versions of the same scientific manuscript were presented. The scientific content was identical, but in one, redundant and less important information, such as the journal’s logo, was removed to make space for the most important details – a process known as ‘weeding’.

Another strategy for reducing cognitive load is ‘pre-training’. This involves showing a simplified version of the material in preparation for the complex article. This preloads the brain, allowing the reader to see what the article is about, putting them in a better position to evaluate the complicated parts of the article.

Before handing over to Bell, Morrison shared his poster template from his #betterposter campaign, which is specifically designed to reduce cognitive load. In this template, the main finding takes up the majority of the space with the intention of teaching a small part of the study quickly, resulting in a better understanding of the other material.

Storytelling in manuscripts

Bell closed the session by reflecting on the development of the scientific manuscript since its inception. In the 19th and 20th centuries, the scientific manuscript was loved by scientists for providing a detailed discussion of data that could be trusted.

But then, the world changed and the scientific manuscript struggled to keep up. People no longer had time to sift through the lengthy articles and complained of cognitive overload by the end of the first page! So, one day, the scientific manuscript hypothesised: ‘‘If I change my appearance and make bite-sized, mini-versions of myself, maybe the world will love me again?’’

From this moment, we began to see changes, including the use of colour and labels to make tables easier to digest. The scientific manuscript even created mini, open access friends – known as publication extenders. The scientific manuscript had successfully reduced cognitive load by producing manageable, bite-size stories, and achieved universal design by creating content accessible to a wide range of audiences. Nevertheless, the scientific manuscript was left with more questions, such as ‘‘who is this new ‘AI’ guy? He seems…efficient’’. Bell left the audience with a question for thought: will the scientific manuscript live happily ever after?

“If I change my appearance and make bite-sized, mini-versions of myself, maybe the world will love me again?”

Publisher insights: integrating essential trends into your publication planning

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Publishers are keen to work in partnership with authors to ensure that research is published in the most effective and impactful ways.

Kelly Soldavin (Taylor & Francis Group), Emilie Gunn (American Society of Clinical Oncology [ASCO]), Shari Leventhal (American Society of Nephrology), Hamish McDougall (SAGE), and Susan Willner (American Society of Nephrology) led an engaging and informative session discussing the 4 hottest topics from a selection previously ranked by ISMPP members.

Development and impact of journal content

The discussion opened with questions around the optimal use of new content such as publication extenders and preprints, and the different ways in which they can add value and reach to a manuscript. The panel were unanimous in their agreement that these are an exciting development in publishing but offered some caution for their use. They must be used appropriately, taking into consideration the target audience, the nature of the content being described, and the costs needed to develop sophisticated solutions such as animations or videos versus more conventional options such as plain text summaries and infographics.

Measuring the impact of publication extenders remains a key challenge, since usage of lay summaries or companion infographics is more difficult to assess than other extenders, such as videos or podcasts.

The panel moved on to discuss what the shift from journal-level measurements of impact, namely the Journal Impact Factor, towards metrics focused at the level of the article, such as number of views/mentions or Altmetric scores, would mean for publishers’ wider audiences in general. It was agreed that a combination of conventional journal level metrics and the newer article-level metrics will give the clearest picture of the impact and reach of newly published research.

Concluding with the topic of preprints, the panel stated that these are useful but do not offer the same opportunities to add context or extend reach as does the final published content. For this reason, they do not consider them to have a significant impact on the release of published content.

What’s trending in publishing?

The discussion turned to new content types increasingly being offered by publishers, such as podcasts, visual abstracts, and PLS. The panel emphasised that publishers are keen to explore bold ideas and innovative content proposals, and that authors should feel empowered to approach journal editors with their ideas.

Publishers are keen to explore bold ideas and innovative content proposals… …authors should feel empowered to approach journal editors with their ideas.

New strategies to enhance content discoverability, including leveraging social media, creating microsites, and utilising technology such as augmented reality webinars, were all highlighted later in the discussions as potential examples of this. New article types were also discussed among the panel as a means to accommodate different types of research findings. ASCO has pioneered a new article type called ‘clinical trial updates’ , which permit researchers to provide newly emerging data from previously published clinical studies in the form of brief update reports as opposed to full manuscripts. The panel believe that approaches like this are necessary to improve the author experience and, across the entire industry, many companies are actively investigating different approaches to help streamline and strengthen the submissions process so that it becomes less burdensome for prospective authors.

Best practice recommendations for working with publishers

The number one piece of advice given by each of the panel members was that authors should consider a journal/publisher as a useful partner in their publication planning processes. Proactive communication between authors and journals was encouraged by the panel as it offers more opportunities to help increase the likelihood of publication and to maximise the reach of new research.

Further advice to authors from the panel for working with publishers included:

• give publishers ample time to address requests, since rushed submissions may compromise the quality of the peer review process and publication timeline
• share relevant details about their publication plans as soon as possible, including information about congress presentations or simultaneous publications, to help ensure alignment with journal policies and timelines
• familiarise themselves with the submission guidelines, noting that pre-submission inquiries are a legitimate means to determine if a journal is the right fit for their research.

Effective communication, timely disclosure of information, and adherence to journal guidelines were considered as key to a successful collaboration between authors and publishers.

Diversity, accessibility, and discoverability

The final segment of this session addressed approaches to making content more accessible. Steps that publishers can take to make content more accessible include:

• using appropriate metadata standards
• ensure readability in both online and print formats
• employing high-contrast colours and legible fonts
• providing alternative text for images and using figures designed with accessibility in mind.

On the topic of introducing diversity into the publishing process, the panel revealed several strategies including a push to increase diversity in invitations to authors for non-original research content, diversification of the peer reviewer pool, and a commitment to ensure diversity on journal editorial boards. It was agreed that authors should also be encouraged to consider diversity in their invitations for co-authors and reviewers, with the aim of further fostering an inclusive environment.

Finally, the panel discussed different ways they have been working to improve discoverability of the content they publish, noting initiatives such as increased use of social media platforms, collaborations with external communities and companies to reach broader audiences, and the creation of microsites to curate content around specific topics.

Roundtable sessions

On Day 2, attendees had chance to attend a second set of roundtable discussions covering the following topics:

• Understanding implications of the multicultural landscape in global medical communications
• Beyond the printing press: what next for scientific posters
• Metamorphosis from static to immersive mode: interactive posters, slide decks, and graphical abstracts for scientific publications in the digital age
• Leveraging generative AI to enhance patient accessibility and inclusivity in medical storytelling
• How to make the juice worth the squeeze: overcoming challenges in going beyond publications to extend your data story
• The rapidly changing face of open access
• Play your PLS card write: exploring multistakeholder insights and integrating AI
• Navigating the development of generative AI tools for patient-centric scientific communication
• GPP 2022 guidance on reimbursement & compensation in publications
• Improving accessibility at ISMPP meetings
• How to combat bias in medical communications: tailor your story to your audience
• Open access licenses – who owns copyright and when is permission required?
• Digital strategy: how to work the digital canvas for impact
• Achieving excellence in simultaneous congress presentation and high-tier journal publication: what the publication professional needs to know
• Communicating science to patients: successes and challenges
• The impact of the changing landscape of influence – authors and digital thought leaders

Embracing narratives in medical communications: bridging data and storytelling

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Although traditional publications can be perceived as more scientifically rigorous, narratives can help explain complex data, without sacrificing scientific accuracy.

For the final session of the day, Laura Wuerth (rareLife) led an engaging discussion with Dakota Fisher-Vance (patient advocate, Young Adult Cancer Connection), Tara Moroz (Pfizer), and Mukund Nori (rareLife) on the use of narratives in scientific communications.

The importance of storytelling

Wuerth began by stating that at its core, storytelling in healthcare is about forging connections. In particular, she mentioned the importance of storytelling for conveying knowledge, comforting patients, and fostering trust between practitioners and their communities. She described the key components of a story arc:

• introduction – to get the attention of the target group and address the gap in the field
• rising action – to build momentum and progressively give information
• climax – to present the novel findings, unexpected outcomes, and key findings
• falling action – can include limitations or potential biases and implications
• resolution – a summary of the key points and potential implications of the work.

Wuerth mentioned how the story arc can be adapted for research findings, case studies, and clinical narratives, without taking away from the scientific rigour of the information being presented.

The impact of storytelling for publications

The panel discussed how storytelling can be a valuable tool from a patient/patient advocate perspective. They urged people to consider incorporating the same principles for PLS into primary manuscripts. It was highlighted that around 6,000 peer-reviewed articles are published every day, and that physicians change practice based on these published data. Therefore, incorporating narrative techniques into your publication, as well as other aspects of publishing, is important.

Barriers to storytelling

The panellists discussed some of the barriers to incorporating storytelling in medical communications, which included:

• tradition, such as writing in the classic Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion (IMRaD) structure
• the association of ‘boring’ manuscripts with increased academic rigour
• a need for more training and resources
• resistance from the industry to new methods.

Tips and tricks

The panel gave their advice on how to maximise storytelling in publications:

• Don’t announce that you are storytelling, you can make small, incremental changes instead.
• Liaise with your patient advocacy team to understand how to make content more engaging for patients.
• Don’t be afraid to integrate storytelling into multiple aspects of publications, including manuscripts.

“At the end of writing your manuscript ask yourself, would you want to read it yourself? If the answer is yes, you have reached your goal; if the answer is no…start over.” – Mukund Nori

The session concluded with an audience poll, revealing that most panellists were likely to include storytelling in their next primary clinical trial manuscript. This contrasted the poll at the start of the session, where most audience members said that they rarely incorporate storytelling.

ISMPP professional excellence awards presentation

Gary Burd (Caudex) opened the awards presentation of the 20^th Annual Meeting of ISMPP by announcing this year’s poster prize winners:

• Most reflective of meeting theme: Storytelling through case studies: increased incidence in the scientific literature – Jennifer Hepker, Mildred Bahn, LeAnn Berens, Paul Ferguson, and Jacqueline Benjamin.
• Best original research: Engaging a multi-generational workforce in medical communications – Hannah Brocklehurst, Leen Jouman-Agha, Sophia Meneely, Matilda Toivakka, and Hannah FitzGibbon.
• Best visual communications: Use and accessibility of publication extenders and enhancements: an underutilized method to enhance scientific stories – Shavonn Harper, Jenna Kitz, Sanjula Wickramasinghe, and Erica Wehner.
• Most visionary research: Use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in medical communications for summarization tasks – Danielle L. Shepherd, Nitish Chaudhari, Frederick W. Feldman, Amin Ghane, Stephanie Keys, Dana Lengel, Kristen Mourao, Angela Schlegel, Johnson Ying, and Meryl Gersh.

The presentation continued with the ISMPP professional excellence awards. The society recognised the achievements of its members in the following categories:

• Outstanding committee member award: Ann Gordon
• CMPP award: Megan Weigel
• Rising star award: Mithi Ahmed-Richards
• President’s award: Catherine Skobe
• Lifetime achievement awards: Karen Woolley, Karen Mittleman, Al Weigel

Many congratulations to all of this year’s winners!

Finally, in the year of the 20th anniversary of the founding of ISMPP, Tomas Rees acknowledged the fundamental contribution of the 12 founding members of the society: Timothy D. Bacon, Ross A. Baker, Carolyn S. Clark, Joanne Conaty, Elizabeth Faust, Elizabeth Field, Stan Heimberger, Laurence J. Hirsch, Richard F. Lamb, Gary McQuarrie, Robert Norris, and Gene P. Snyder. Norris,  Clark, and Hirsch were in attendance to be recognised at the awards ceremony.

Why not also read the summaries of Day 1 and Day 3 of the meeting? 

——————————————————–

Written as part of a Media Partnership between ISMPP and The Publication Plan, by Aspire Scientific, an independent medical writing agency led by experienced editorial team members, and supported by MSc and/or PhD-educated writers.

——————————————————–