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 58^th European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) Conference began with a series of Hybrid Conference days where attendees learned about the latest trends in reporting and conducting real-world evidence (RWE) studies, explored best practices for medical translation, and heard from journal publishers about how to navigate the challenges and opportunities presented by artificial intelligence (AI) in medical writing. The Publication Plan were in attendance to summarise the sessions for the benefit of those who were unable to attend, and as a timely reminder of the key topics for those who did. You can read our summary of the session on Publisher Perspectives on AI below.

Our summaries of the RWE Medical Translation symposia can be found here.

Publisher perspectives on AI: Empowering medical writers for the future

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The field of AI is constantly evolving, meaning updated guidance from publishers is needed.
• While new AI tools and resources are continually being developed, human review is always required alongside their use.
• Authors should declare AI use according to journal guidelines, and AI tools should not be listed as a co-author as they cannot take any responsibility.

This session provided a key insight into the evolving landscape of AI in scientific publishing, from the perspective of both publishers and journal editors. The panel presented the latest guidance for authors on AI usage, the perspectives of publishers on integrating AI into their workflows, and the attitudes of healthcare professionals (HCPs) towards the use of AI.

The session began with an introduction from co-chairs Andrea Bucceri and Martin Delahunty. Delahunty cast minds back to November 2022 when ChatGPT first hit the scene, recalling the positive reaction from both the medical writing and publishing community. Summarising the goal of the session, Annette Flanagin (Journal of the American Medical Association; JAMA) established the need to distinguish the good, the bad, and the ugly elements of AI in the scientific publishing sphere.

“How can we differentiate the good, the bad, and the ugly?” – Annette Flanagin

Generative AI publishing policies

Kelly Ann Soldavin (Taylor & Francis Group) discussed generative AI publishing policies and real-world uses of AI in publications. One of the key highlights from publisher and journal policies, as well as publisher organisations, was that generative AI cannot be listed as an author and that the use of generative AI must be disclosed. Authors are ultimately responsible for the originality, validity, and integrity of their content. Overall guidance for disclosing the use of generative AI includes:

• AI should be disclosed in the methods, acknowledgements, and/or cover letter
• content created or modified should be disclosed
• the name and version of the AI tool and how the AI tool was used should be clearly stated
• authors are encouraged to include the original input prompts and outputs in the submission or supplementary materials.

Guidelines on the use of AI-generated text and images vary for different publishers and individual publishers have their own policies on how AI tools can be used. Generally, appropriate use of generative AI by authors includes:

• idea generation and exploration
• language improvement
• interactive online search
• coding assistance
• aid in analysis of data.

Having specific guidance for different areas of publishing is important, with many policies including separate guidance for editors and peer reviewers. This is illustrated in the AI guidelines at Taylor & Francis. As a continually evolving field, Taylor & Francis are considering potential updates to their AI policy in 2025, with wider updates expected from other publishers, organisations and governments.

“If you are not sure, talk to your editor, talk to the journal.” – Kelly Ann Soldavin

The JAMA perspective

Flanagin further discussed the use of AI from a publisher’s perspective, noting how AI-related publications have increased in the last year, and notably, cases where ChatGPT was listed as a co-author. In line with most publisher policies, the policy at JAMA specifies that AI cannot be accountable for authorship.

“Nonhuman artificial intelligence, language models, machine learning, or similar technologies do not qualify for authorship.” – Annette Flanagin

At JAMA, there are clear instructions for authors on the use of AI, and authors are asked to disclose if AI was used in the manuscript submission form. In 2023/24, ~1.6% of authors disclosed AI use, most commonly:

• for language, grammar, and translation
• to reduce the word count for titles/abstracts
• to identify the focus of a study/intervention.

AI is not used to make editorial decisions; however, a collection of AI-like tools are used to aid editor assessments and improve process efficiencies. These tools still require human review and oversight for accuracy, and examples include:

• checking image integrity
• determining similarities in manuscripts
• recommending peer reviewers based on keywords.

JAMA are asking reviewers not to use AI for peer review, particularly as material is confidential. Only 0.6% of reviewers currently acknowledge using AI, mainly for language issues or to see if a statistical test was appropriate for the study design.

Although it is unusual for publishers to frequently update their policies, JAMA updated their policy in March 2023, which reflects how rapidly AI is progressing and further changes may still be expected.

The Lancet perspective

Jessamy Bagenal (The Lancet) continued the session, noting key similarities and differences in the uses and guidelines for AI at The Lancet:

• authors are asked at submission to disclose whether AI was used and what it was used for; compared with 0.6% of authors at JAMA, initial results suggest that 6% of authors say they have used AI in some format at The Lancet
• generative AI is limited to the use of spelling and grammar for editorials and commentaries, to not be exclusionary to people whose first language isn’t English, or those who are neuroatypical
• Elsevier (who publish The Lancet) have developed confidential publisher-specific AI tools for editors, although these are not commonly used
• AI is not preferred for peer review and AI-generated images are not recommended.

Both Flanagin and Bagenal agreed that the field is rapidly evolving and policies could all be subject to change.

AI tools to enhance publishing processes

In the next talk, Anannya Mohapatra (Springer Nature), described her role in using AI to enhance publishing processes and advance tools and strategies to support researchers, publishers, and HCPs.

Large language models (LLMs) and generative AI can transform the way we write, with many researchers using AI for research-focused and non-research related tasks. At Springer Nature, internal AI tools have been developed for editors and medical writers to aid content creation, which allows a ‘human-machine handshake’ with LLMs. The tools are currently used for:

• research highlights – the first AI-generated research highlight was published by Nature India in January 2023
• PrimeViews – AI-generated infographics that condense key information from an article into one page, with a relevant image
• plain language summaries (PLS) – AI-enhanced PLS development strategy to tailor the summary to the general public or HCPs.

Although these tools streamline processes and reduce timelines, all content is verified and fact-checked by humans to ensure reliability and accuracy. This was described as a ‘human-AI partnership in medical writing’, with specific roles that are suited to AI versus a human. As with other publishers, AI is not accepted as a credited author at Springer Nature, and use of AI tools should be declared in the summary itself.

“AI is a means, not an end. [The] focus is always on the user and a human-centred approach to AI.” – Anannya Mohapatra

Concluding, Mohapatra described newly developed tools, including a tool for editorial summaries of articles for authors, and a tool that generates PLS of research for a pharma industry and HCP audience.

A clinician’s perspective

In the final presentation of the session, Adrian Mulligan (Elsevier) gave an insight into clinicians’ attitudes towards AI. The session covered highlights from an Elsevier 2024 study ‘Insights 2024: Attitudes toward AI’, which contained ~1000 responses from clinicians over 85 countries.

Awareness of AI was high among clinicians, with the majority saying they were familiar with AI in some form. Interestingly, only around half of clinicians had actually used AI. ChatGPT was by far the most well-known AI tool, although it was pointed out that as the study was performed 9 months ago, the findings today may shift due to the rapidly changing field. Results from the survey indicate that institutions need support in conveying their AI usage restrictions and preparations to clinicians.

The attitudes of clinicians towards AI are mixed, but are more positive than negative. Clinicians recognise clear opportunities for AI, including:

• accelerated knowledge discovery
• cost savings to institutions and businesses
• increased work quality
• increased time for higher value work.

The concerns listed by clinicians included the potential for misinformation or errors and the erosion of human critical thinking.

“Although there would be many benefits, it would also wreak havoc if false information were spread.” – Nurse (Mexico) respondent to the Insights 2024: Attitudes toward AI study

Clinicians believe that AI must be responsible, ethical, and transparent and they see many benefits of integrating AI into their workload, including for:

• publishing – formatting a manuscript or finding a journal
• research – writing code or checking data
• using scientific content – literature searches or reviewing clinical evidence
• teaching – looking for real-world examples or preparing teaching materials
• clinical activities – reviewing a patient’s history or identifying correct treatment approaches
• funding activities – identifying potential collaborators or writing a proposal.

The survey highlighted that clinicians want ‘guard rails’ around AI, and they don’t want the relationship with the patient to be lost.

Closing remarks

Delahunty brought the absorbing session to a close, encouraging EMWA members to empower themselves and be better informed and feel more confident when having discussions around AI with research authors, agencies, and clients alike as the field continues to evolve.

Why not read our summaries from the RWE and Medical Translation symposia here.

——————————————————–

Written as part of a Media Partnership between EMWA and The Publication Plan, by Aspire Scientific, a proudly independent medical writing and communications agency that believes in putting people first.

——————————————————–

The 58^th European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) Conference began with a series of Hybrid Conference days where attendees learned about the latest trends in reporting and conducting real-world evidence (RWE) studies, explored best practices for medical translation, and heard from journal publishers about how to navigate the challenges and opportunities presented by artificial intelligence (AI) in medical writing. The Publication Plan were in attendance to summarise the sessions for the benefit of those who were unable to attend, and as a timely reminder of the key topics for those who did. You can read our summaries of the sessions on RWE and Medical Translation below.

Our report of the Publishers’ Perspectives on AI symposium is available here.

Updates on best practices for conducting and publishing real-world evidence studies

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• When reporting RWE data, consistency and transparency are vital to avoid potentially catastrophic outcomes.
• New guidelines, tools, and registries are available to aid compliance.

The road ahead

Andrea Bucceri (Lumanity, EMWA Medical Communications Special Interest Group) opened the session with a ‘road’ analogy: randomised controlled trials (RCTs)—with their homogenous populations and eligibility criteria—may be likened to a clean, well-surfaced road. By contrast, RWE studies—with their heterogeneous populations, missing patient details, confounders, data gaps, and lack of randomisation—are akin to a muddy, potholed road. Clear guidance is therefore essential.

Clear guidance is essential when embarking on an RWE journey.

When reporting RWE data, consistency and transparency are vital to:

• allow comparison of data from different RWE studies
• plan future studies and interventions
• improve reproducibility.

Bucceri stressed that “major disasters” can occur when reporting guidelines are not followed, exemplified by the embarrassing retraction of the hydroxychloroquine study from the prestigious Lancet journal during the COVID-19 pandemic. Bucceri asserted that in this instance, the authors were supposed to apply the RECORD and RECORD-PE reporting guidelines but failed to do so. Three of the authors stated that they were unable to access the raw study data due to legal issues.

Several other RWE reporting guidelines exist, including the STROBE-ME (observational studies—molecular epidemiology), STREGA (genetic association studies), and REMARK (REporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies). In addition, regulatory and Health Technology Assessment bodies have issued RWE study reporting guidance, such as the European Medicines Agency (EMA), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Bucceri observed that all these guidelines were developed after the COVID-19 pandemic, which highlighted the importance of RWE in public health decision-making, and prompted regulatory agencies to regulate the RWE field more closely.

Some professional bodies have chosen to go beyond these broad frameworks to develop guidelines tailored to specific disease areas. In the second part of the session, Bucceri highlighted one such guideline: the European Society for Medical Oncology Guidance for Reporting Oncology real-World evidence (ESMO-GROW).

The ESMO-GROW guidance for reporting oncology real-world evidence

ESMO-GROW is the first expert-based guidance designed specifically for reporting oncology RWE studies. A multidisciplinary expert taskforce developed the guidance in response to concerns that existing guidelines lacked specificity, and that the need to use multiple complementary guidelines was proving burdensome to authors and journals.

Available as a free online tool, ESMO-GROW can be used to report descriptive, analytical, and pragmatic RWE studies. The tool consists of 35 reporting recommendations across 6 sections spanning the title of the manuscript through to its discussion and conclusions. Each section contains specific recommendations about what to include in the manuscript, with the aim of standardising oncology RWE publishing output. The tool asks the user to select whether they have fully reported, partially reported, or not reported each recommendation (or whether the recommendation is not applicable), and on completion provides a score by which to assess compliance.

The guidance was developed in consultation with and will be available as part of the EQUATOR network. The ESMO-GROW criteria are already in use, and Bucceri advocated acknowledging the tool whenever it is used in a manuscript.

What to include in your manuscript: the experts’ view

For the next part of the session, Bucceri presented feedback from RWE journal editorial board experts about what to include in manuscript submissions.

All studies (regardless of size) that are well-conducted, novel, and that address an important clinical question are worth publishing!

Of note, editorial experts stressed that all studies (regardless of size) that are well-conducted, novel, and that address an important clinical question are worth publishing! This is particularly true of RWE studies, which often include populations excluded from traditional study designs such as the elderly, children, or pregnant women.

Specifically, submitting authors should:

• Provide a detailed rationale for the study
• Pre-register the study in a public repository (and provide details of pre-registration)
• Address strengths, limitations and confounders in a dedicated paragraph within the Discussion (limitations and confounders are sometimes more interesting than the data itself)
• A qualified statistician should be among the authors, with their contribution clearly stated
• Work closely with their statistician to report and minimise bias in the manuscript
• Provide a detailed protocol of data extraction, including key variables (plus lists and codes) and combinations for defining study subjects, and detail who performed the extraction
• Exercise caution when using significance testing – correlation does not prove causation!
• Conclusions must be in line with the data presented!

Pre-registration

Bucceri then focussed on pre-registration, the process of publicly sharing a research and analysis plan in advance in a public repository. Pre-registration may help prevent overfitting, p-hacking, cherry picking, or HARKing (Hypothesising After the Results are Known), increase transparency and rigour, and boost public confidence in research. The EMA and FDA have issued their own guidance on pre-registration.

Stakeholders have previously raised concerns that registries such as ClinicalTrials.gov were not built with RWE studies in mind. To address this, The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and other collaborators have developed the Real World Evidence Registry—a purpose-built platform for RWE study pre-registration. The registry is not specific to the EU and can be used by researchers globally. It is also suitable for medical device RWE studies.

Furthermore, the EMA and Heads of Medicine’s Agencies (HMA) have launched the HMA-EMA Catalogues of real-world data sources and studies (with an accompanying Good Practice Guide). Potential uses of these catalogues include data source identification and benchmarking of data sources via metadata.

In the Q&A, questions were raised about how journals check that pre-registered studies are eventually published. Bucceri responded that this is good practice but not mandatory, and that the imperative to do this should be policy-driven from companies themselves. He acknowledged that incomplete studies are an ongoing issue.

The home run

At the end of the Q&A, Bucceri closed the session with a baseball analogy from the expert feedback he had received. The editorial board experts have a ‘three strikes’ policy regarding RWE study manuscript rejection:

• If the study was not pre-registered…strike one!
• If the rationale is not properly defined…strike two!
• If the statistician is not in the author list…STRIKE THREE (manuscript rejected)!

But if you have all of them in your RWE study submission, you have a good chance of a home run!

The essentials of medical translation: foundations and best practices & key translation topics

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Medical translation requires specialised expertise, combining language skills, subject knowledge, research, and precision, often under tight deadlines.
• Addressing source document issues and expanded training for writers and translators are critical to improve clarity, reduce errors, and streamline processes for creating global content.
• Technology integration and effective workflow management are a key part of ensuring compliance, quality assurance, and efficiency.
• AI, as in medical writing, can support processes under strict human supervision to mitigate risks related to confidentiality, accuracy, and regulation.

This seminar was co-chaired by Ana Sofia Correia (EMWA Medical Communications Special Interest Group – Translation Enthusiasts Subgroup), Claire Harmer (EMWA Medical Communications Special Interest Group – Translation Enthusiasts Subgroup), and Valentina Luridiana (TREMÉDICA) and provided an in-depth overview of medical translation, underscoring the unique demands and best practices within this specialised field.

The session was structured in two parts. The first half—Foundations and Best Practices—featured presentations addressing critical aspects of medical translation. These included the profile and skills of medical translators, key workflows for effective translation (such as managing multilingual content and documentation requirements), and strategies to overcome common challenges. The second half—Key Translation Topics—offered a series of focused breakout sessions where attendees and presenters could exchange ideas and experiences. These sessions explored topics such as the expectations, needs, and challenges faced by stakeholders, best practices for creating translation-ready materials, the role of technology, strategies for culturally sensitive translation, and the variety of translation services available.

The presentations highlighted the essential skills for those interested in entering the profession, the complexities of navigating the medical and pharmaceutical sectors—particularly for medical translators and writers, who comprised nearly two-thirds of the session attendees—and the role of technology, especially in an industry with strict regulatory requirements.

“Translators in the pharmaceutical industry are a bridge connecting patients, healthcare providers, and pharmaceutical companies across borders.” – Elisa Manzanal Merino

The multifaceted role of the medical translator

In the first presentation, Alina Cincan (Inbox Translation) discussed how medical translators, often from diverse backgrounds, need a unique blend of skills to perform their role. Key attributes include a robust grasp of source and target languages, a solid understanding of the life sciences, strong research skills, discipline, time management, and accuracy, to name a few. Translators must also navigate additional challenges such as:

• complex terminology
• convoluted source texts
• challenging deadlines
• emotional challenges (reviewing sensitive patient information or critical diagnoses can be emotionally taxing)
• inadequate translations from machine translation or translation memories.

Several solutions and specific tools and tips were offered, whether undertaking continuing professional development or adopting software like AntConc, a free corpus analysis toolkit for text concordancing and analysis.

The future of translation, given the advent of AI, featured throughout the presentations, with a particular focus on the concerns and risks related to confidentiality, accuracy, regulatory matters, and non-specialist datasets; however, Cincan acknowledged that medical translation has seen less impact compared with other specialisations. Cincan concluded with some final recommendations for translators, including continued specialisation, networking, joining professional associations, and keeping abreast of developments.

Traversing complex workflows for accurate and compliant translation

Representing the perspective of a medical translation agency, Yana Safina (mt-g) elaborated on how their workflows—such as those for complex multilanguage projects in the sphere of clinical studies—are shaped by compliance with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO); these include standards for translation, proofreading, back translation, and master review; machine translation and post-editing; and text analysis, translation, and revision. Safina also highlighted the advantages of computer-assisted translation (CAT) tools, including time efficiencies, consistency, and improved formatting. While beneficial for some projects, these tools have their pitfalls and intricacies, but agencies are well positioned to provide knowledge and advice on their use.

Safina also emphasised the complementary role of machine translation and post-editing, which can accelerate workflows without replacing human translators, before moving on to quality assurance. This crucial and comprehensive process begins with tested translators, client requirements, feasibility checks, and desired ISO standards; continues with established workflows, preparation of source texts, and choosing a CAT tool; and ends with translation memory and terminology checks, internal quality assurance in the CAT tool, desktop publishing, and layout checks. Once again, the potential of AI was mentioned in relation to integration with or replacement of CAT tools, with testing underway in the quality assurance process.

“AI and machine-learning applications used for drafting, compiling, editing, translating, tailoring, or reviewing medicinal product information documents should be used under close human supervision.” – EMA Reflection paper on the use of AI in the medicinal product lifecycle

A prescription for precision: meeting the rising demand for medical translation

In the second part of this seminar, Elisa Manzanal Merino (Normon Laboratories) shared insights from her role as an in-house pharmaceutical translator, allowing her to explore the intersection between the pharmaceutical industry and translation, and between language and science more broadly. The industry’s remarkable growth has led to rising demands for precise, highly specialised translation services. With the global demand for new treatments and emerging markets driving the need for multilingual documentation, translators in this field require deep subject matter expertise and familiarity with resources like the EU and US pharmacopoeias and International Council for Harmonisation guidelines.

The medical translation industry’s remarkable growth has led to rising demands for precise, highly specialised translation services.

Pharmaceutical companies may require in-house teams to provide ‘inverse translation’ (ie, translating from your native language into your non-native language); the dominance of English in scientific and pharmaceutical contexts and restricted timelines or small in-house teams potentially influence this demand. While outsourcing is common, in-house translation departments offer advantages, including streamlined workflows, rapid query resolution, and quality consistency. This efficiency is essential given the volume and variety of documents, from registration dossiers to marketing materials and patient-facing leaflets.

“Without translation, we would be living in provinces bordering on silence.” – George Steiner

Celestial navigation: following the sun to meet translation and localisation challenges

Courtney Vasile, a senior localisation project manager at Medtronic, discussed the challenges specific to the MedTech sector, where geographical and technological considerations come into play in their translation practice. At Medtronic, their complex workflow involves a two-step process of translation and revision, completed by two different linguists (native speakers who have extensive medical translation backgrounds), followed by extensive quality assurance checks and review by an in-country subject matter expert.

A ‘follow the sun’ approach ―leveraging global teams in the medical translation process― can help to balance tight deadlines and the need for high-quality outputs.

Though the process can be cumbersome when balancing tight deadlines with the need for high-quality outputs, in-house departments allow for agility when it comes to resolving queries, and there are more opportunities to educate internally and with clients on the complexities of the translation process. Furthermore, they have adopted a ‘follow the sun’ approach to leverage global teams and support rapid turnarounds, with offices spanning multiple time zones. Though their challenges might be considered standard across the industry, ongoing training, whether on writing for a global audience or how to use their proprietary content management system effectively, ensures a solution-oriented approach and a focus on innovation.

In summary, medical translation requires subject expertise, precision, and a commitment to quality underpinned by best practices that embrace technology integration and collaborative workflows.

With this in mind, the breakout rooms allowed for a deeper discussion on key translation issues:

• Mapping the medical translation ecosystem: Roles, expectations, and challenges – moderated by Katarzyna E Slobodzian-Taylor (Mastermind Translations)
• Translation-ready materials: Best practices and the role of the translation brief – moderated by Ana Sofia Correia
• Technology and translation: What tools do medical translators use to enhance quality and increase productivity – moderated by Thomas Tolnai (Tolnai Translations)
• How to produce a medical translation that is culturally sensitive? – moderated by Nur Ferrante (Art of Diversity)
• Beyond traditional translation: Exploring diverse modalities in medical communication – moderated by Claire Harmer

As Manzanal Merino summarised, “translators in the pharmaceutical industry are a bridge connecting patients, healthcare providers, and pharmaceutical companies across borders”. Medical translation is a driving force behind equitable access to healthcare, and this seminar emphasised the essential role that translators play in safeguarding accuracy and compliance within healthcare communications.

Our report from the Publisher Perspectives on AI session can be found here.

——————————————————–

Written as part of a Media Partnership between EMWA and The Publication Plan, by Aspire Scientific, a proudly independent medical writing and communications agency that believes in putting people first.

——————————————————–

—————————————————

Recorded 27 September 2024 as a MedComms Networking webinar. Produced by NetworkPharma.tv

——————————————————–

The 12^th European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) symposium, entitled ‘AI in Medical Writing’ took place on 9 May. The symposium explored technological aspects of AI, ethical considerations, and showcased practical applications for medical writers and communications specialists. If you missed the afternoon session, you can catch up on the key themes with our summaries below, or get a quick refresher if you were in attendance!

You can read our summary of the morning session of the symposium here.

Librarians are essential in bridging the AI gaps

KEY TAKEAWAY

• AI presents medical writers and the broader pharmaceutical industry with great opportunities but also valid concerns; library teams have an important role to play in supporting effective and ethical use of AI and promoting AI literacy.

In this session, Jill Shuman (Takeda) considered the proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) tools and the opportunities and challenges they pose for medical writers. It is estimated that generative AI can bring $60–100 billion value to the pharmaceutical industry annually. AI is also a powerful tool in the face of ‘infobesity’ – with 2 new papers added on PubMed every minute, keeping up with the literature becomes ever more challenging.

There is a pressing need for tools that can assess and extract scientific information faster and deeper, with AI being particularly useful for applications including data extraction for systematic reviews and competitive intelligence. At the same time, AI raises a number of valid concerns, particularly with regards to ethical and copyright issues. Library teams within pharmaceutical organisations have already been looking at the issues for some time and have a critical role to play in supporting the appropriate adoption of AI. In particular, librarians can work to promote AI literacy, ensuring that use of AI tools is both effective and ethical. They can also support medical writers in developing the AI skills that will soon be a prerequisite for the job.

Library teams within pharmaceutical organisations have a critical role to play in supporting the appropriate adoption of AI.

AI-assisted tool for academic writing – supporting researchers in sharing knowledge

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Application of AI to the process of creating a book can reduce the time to publication and the burden on authors and editors, but humans remain central to the process.

Vivien Bender (Springer Nature) described an innovative project that brought together authors, editors, and experts from across Springer Nature to develop a new academic book using generative AI. Creation of the book followed a design process approach, with the team drawing on AI support at each stage in the process. The process also followed 5 principles for the use of AI in publishing: dignity, respect, and minimising harm; fairness and equity; transparency; accountability; and privacy and data governance.

The experiment highlighted the importance of engaging an interdisciplinary team in the development process and that, while AI can be a valuable and powerful tool, humans remain central to the process, relying on their expertise on the subject matter and skills in areas such as high-quality editing. Humans must also continue to take ultimate responsibility for the content. The application of AI accelerated the publication process, making topical information available sooner and reducing the time demands on authors. By assisting authors in areas where they have less experience or skills, AI can also lower barriers for those looking to publish their work.

The experiment highlighted the importance of engaging an interdisciplinary team when incorporating AI into the writing process.

Translation in the era of AI

KEY TAKEAWAY

• AI is a game-changer for translation services; human translators still have an important role to play but need to adapt and refine their skills to make effective use of AI in their role.

AI is having a dramatic impact on translation services, raising the question of whether human translation has a future in the face of rapidly advancing AI tools. Translator and conference interpreter Nora Díaz (Consultant Translator) described the arrival of AI as a game-changer, noting that, depending on the AI engine, machine translation can now rival human translation. Generative AI is widely available and can provide context-aware translations adapted to particular audiences. The potential benefits of AI translation include faster turnaround combined with improved accuracy.

The uptake of AI by translation companies has been rapid, driven by the need to remain competitive. The impact for translators has been mixed – while AI provides them with enhanced tools it also puts their job security at risk. However, companies are increasingly adopting a hybrid approach which retains the human translator as an essential element, with AI used to generate a ‘pre-translation’ which the human translator then refines through a very close edit and check. In this rapidly changing environment, translators need to reskill and upskill. In particular, translators should look to further their skills in developing AI prompts, which are critical to ensuring the quality of machine translations.

Translators should look to further their skills in developing AI prompts, which are critical to ensuring the quality of machine translations.

Structured content authoring

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Generative AI is well suited to use alongside structured content authoring in the development of a range of clinical documents.

Mati Kargren (Parexel International) considered the application of AI and structured content authoring (SCA) to the development of clinical documents across the product lifecycle. SCA uses an approach in which information is broken down into components (eg, study design, patient characteristics, interventions, etc.) that can then be rearranged and reused across multiple documents. Benefits of the SCA approach can include increased consistency, faster turnaround times, reduced need for manual intervention, and improved tracking of content.

AI can be particularly effective where clear structures are in place. Structured content makes for more reliable AI training and, in turn, more reliable AI performance. At the same time, the clear and consistent structure of many clinical documents makes them well suited for generation by AI trained on the structured content.

AI can be particularly effective where clear structures are in place. Structured content makes for more reliable AI training and, in turn, more reliable AI performance.

Dispelling the myths of ChatGPT and misconceptions of AI for your medical writing

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Generative AI and machine learning are not about to replace human medical writers, but medical writers need to adapt and learn how to use AI appropriately in their work.

Depending on where you look, AI is either our gateway to a golden age or a fast-track to unemployment and poverty. David Piester (Symbiance) looked to dispel some of the myths surrounding generative AI and its impact on medical writers. While concerns about the risks of AI are valid, fear is beginning to subside with growing familiarity. The reality of AI and machine learning is that, while it will have an important role to play, it will not replace medical writers or be able to write a complete clinical study report (CSR) on its own.

Medical writers need to work alongside AI, using it for specific tasks, such as structured and formatted processes, and for repetitive and data-heavy tasks. The requirement for closed-loop systems to ensure data privacy and intellectual property rights is a key barrier to the use of AI to generate CSRs and other documentation. The medical writer remains essential and in short supply. However, writers need to adapt to apply AI effectively and appropriately. As Piester noted: “AI will not replace you. A person who’s using AI will replace you.”

While concerns about the risks of AI are valid, fear is beginning to subside as familiarity with AI grows.

Empowering regulatory medical writers: leveraging tools to enhance your writing

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Generative AI tools are available that offer seamless integration with other applications, and are best deployed in a small batch approach to specific tasks within the overall document development process.

Philip Burridge (Morula Health) considered the AI tools available to medical writers to assist and enhance their work. In particular, Burridge focused on Microsoft Copilot, based on its seamless integration with widely used Microsoft Office applications such as Word, PowerPoint, and Excel. Given the critical issue of data confidentiality, it was noted that prompts, responses, and data used within Copilot remain within the Microsoft 365 service boundary and can be locked down by particular users and accounts. However, this does not preclude Microsoft using your data in some way.

Benefits to medical writers of AI tools such as Microsoft Copilot include time savings related to mundane and repetitive tasks, accurate outputs, integration with other applications such as word processing and spreadsheet programmes, and data security on a user level. It was noted that quality outputs require quality inputs in the form of well-devised prompts, and that the best use of AI is for small batch work, applied to specific, structured tasks within the overall document development process.

Quality AI outputs require quality inputs in the form of well-devised prompts.

How will medical writers work with AI

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Use of AI tools has the potential to allow medical writers to focus on the strategic elements of their role; while writers need to know how to use the tools, they do not need to understand in detail how they work.

It is clear that AI is driving a shift in the role of the medical writer. Julia Forjanic Klapproth (Trilogy Writing and Consulting) explored how medical writers can work together with AI and examined some common misconceptions concerning AI and medical writing. Firstly, Forjanic Klapproth countered the opinion that medical writers will need to be highly tech-savvy, noting that they will not need to understand in detail how AI tools work in order to use them. She used the analogy that most of us can drive a car successfully but relatively few understand the detailed workings of car motors. Learning to use AI tools should be no different from mastering other software tools.

Another misconception is that AI will remove the strategic element of the writer role. Conversely, Forjanic Klapproth argued that AI will make medical writers more strategic, freeing them from mundane and repetitive tasks to focus on guiding the direction of projects and gaining deeper insights from the data. The medical writer has a key role as the ‘architect’ and ‘story builder’ of the output, using their vision to steer the AI tool to a successful output. Use of AI should also reduce the potential for bias compared with humans when extracting and assessing data. Ultimately, AI should allow medical writers to get more done more quickly and with greater consistency and accuracy, at the same time as allowing them to focus on strategic tasks such as meaning and messaging.

AI should allow medical writers to get more done more quickly and with greater consistency and accuracy.

AI in regulatory medical writing – opportunities and challenges

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Use of rules-based AI can substantially improve speed and efficiency of preparing regulatory documents, freeing medical writers from repetitive tasks to focus on strategic authoring.

Eishita Agarwal (GSK) looked at how innovative AI-driven systems are driving advances in regulatory medical writing. In particular, rules-based AI can be used to increase the speed and efficiency of developing documents such as study reports and clinical summaries. AI tools can also improve accuracy and consistency. Agarwal emphasised that AI is an enabling technology rather than a ‘magic bullet’ and needs to be deployed alongside other enablers within a multidisciplinary approach engaging all key stakeholders.

Practical experience of deploying rules-based AI to development of 10 CSRs demonstrated substantial reductions (~50%) in development time for 70% of the CSRs. For the remaining 30%, efficiencies were held back somewhat by resistance to changing mindsets and adopting new working practices. Use of AI is redefining the medical writer role, empowering writers to focus on strategic authoring while deploying technology to handle repetitive tasks.

Short intro to the EU AI Act and its impact

KEY TAKEAWAY

• The European Union AI Act is a long overdue piece of legislation that aims to maximise the benefits of AI while mitigating the risks, and holds providers and deployers accountable for the ethical and risk-conscious implementation of AI.

The European Union (EU) AI Act is a ground-breaking piece of regulation that governs development and use of AI within the EU; it aims to promote human-centric and trustworthy AI at the same time as protecting health, safety, and fundamental rights, while still supporting innovation. The legislative framework around AI is a dynamic and rapidly evolving field, and Ward Neefs (Pfizer) overviewed key features of the AI Act.

The Act classifies the risks associated with AI into 4 categories – minimal, limited, high, and unacceptable – with healthcare falling within the high-risk category and thus requiring the strictest safeguards. It overlays existing regulations in areas such as medical devices and in vitro diagnostics, bringing with it some additional requirements. Neefs concluded that AI carries a high risk if it is applied without careful consideration of its limitations and potential for bias. However, if good data modelling practices are followed, machine learning has the potential to do more good than harm.

The EU AI Act aims to promote human-centric and trustworthy AI at the same time as protecting health, safety, and fundamental rights, while still supporting innovation.

How to create an effective prompt: a mandatory skill for the medical writers

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Prompt engineering is becoming a mandatory skill for medical writers to learn how to make effective use of generative AI tools.

Namrata Singh (Turacoz Group) addressed the critical issue of creating prompts for AI tools and how this is becoming an essential skill for medical writers. Prompts are instructions entered into the AI interface and need to be engineered to yield precise, coherent, and pertinent responses. Prompts fall into a number of different categories but all require a considered and creative approach in order to achieve the best outputs.

Singh described the CLEAR Framework, which encapsulates 5 factors that are central to effective prompt engineering: Concise, Logical, Explicit, Adaptive, and Reflective. An understanding of the parameters that determine the effectiveness of prompts is helpful, but learning prompt engineering comes from exploring, interacting with the tools, and learning from mistakes.

Learning prompt engineering comes from exploring, interacting with the tools, and learning from mistakes.

Optimising medical content creation: a strategic framework for implementing generative AI

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Development of a strategic framework for implementing generative AI can help to ensure optimal resource utilisation and timely adoption of new technology, as well as guiding medical content creators through the challenges of applying generative AI.

Generative AI is a transformative technology that comes with significant challenges and limitations. Keyur Brahmbhatt (Merck KGaA) presented a strategic framework for implementing generative AI for medical content creation, providing for rapid implementation and optimal resource utilisation.

Generative AI is a rapidly developing technology and comes with limitations including bias, ‘hallucinations’, and intellectual property and privacy concerns. A number of approaches are available to overcome or mitigate the limitations, ranging from quick, low-cost options such as prompt optimisation, to lengthy, high-cost options such as training new, customised large language models. A horizontal integration roadmap for applying generative AI across a range of medical contents can streamline efforts and investments when applying this rapidly advancing technology.

Summary and conclusions

AI technology is set to redefine the role of medical writers but not make them redundant. Applying AI to repetitive and mundane tasks can improve accuracy and consistency while accelerating the development of medical materials, freeing up writers for more strategic activities.

——————————————————–

Written as part of a Media Partnership between EMWA and The Publication Plan, by Aspire Scientific, a proudly independent medical writing and communications agency that believes in putting people first.

——————————————————–

The 12^th European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) symposium, entitled ‘AI in Medical Writing’ took place on 9 May. The symposium explored technological aspects of AI, ethical considerations, and showcased practical applications for medical writers and communications specialists. If you missed the morning session, you can catch up on the key themes with our summaries below, or get a quick refresher if you were in attendance!

You can read our summary of the afternoon session of the symposium here.

Harnessing AI for efficient systematic reviews in medical publications

KEY TAKEAWAY

• AI tools can assist with the different steps of developing systematic medical reviews; writers are encouraged to learn how these tools work to improve their workflows.

Sepanta Fazaeli (Stryker) presented the opening session of the symposium on how natural language processing (NLP) models can be used to expedite the development of systematic medical reviews. NLP models have evolved from traditional machine learning models (with no semantic understanding) and deep learning models that use neural networks (with some semantic understanding), to large language models (LLMs) such as Open AI’s ChatGPT, which offer powerful interpretation of text and the ability to better capture the nuances of human language.

NLP models have evolved as a powerful means for interpreting human language.

Fazaeli outlined a workflow for developing systematic reviews using AI:

1. Query generation and retrieval: state of the art tools connect to a database, eg, PubMed, for data retrieval
2. Screening: key studies are prioritised
3. Appraisal and extraction: most often based on the abstract alone to reduce computational demands, with a focus on PICO elements (Patient/population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes)
4. Analysis and report generation: quantitative and qualitative analyses; PRISMA diagrams are updated as new studies are integrated

There are now multiple tools offering automation of some or all of these steps, though none are necessarily validated. Writers should select tools based on what they want to achieve, and query the validation, metrics, explainability, and the specificity and sensitivity of a tool before purchase or use.

Beyond the hype: 5 ways you can use your domain knowledge to supercharge your writing with AI

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Writers should use generative AI tools with an educational mindset and become skilled in prompting AI in order to obtain the desired output.

Avi Staiman (Academic Language Experts and SciWriter.ai) provided recommendations on how writers can make the most of AI tools using their own subject knowledge. Staiman emphasised that LLMs need to be guided in an iterative manner to achieve the best output.

Effective prompting is key to obtain the desired results from LLMs. When prompting, the following elements can be used to tailor the output:

1. Role – who you want the AI model to be, eg, a scientist, a medical writer, or a patient
2. Goal – what you are trying to achieve, eg, write an academic article
3. Level – eg, lay text versus scientific writing
4. Few-shot prompting – giving the tool examples, eg, “here is a good example of an introduction section of a randomised controlled trial”
5. Personalisation – using specific instructions, eg, “only use papers from the last 5 years”
6. Constraints – what you don’t want the tool to do, eg, “do not provide a summary”
7. Iteration – repeating prompts in order to optimise the output

Staiman gave the following example of an effective prompt using some of these elements:

“You are a science writer [1] writing an article for the New England Journal of Medicine [3]. I want you to write an exhaustive literature review [2] on the topic of the main symptoms of colon cancer including gaps in the research. The literature review should focus on research published in the last few years [5]. Don’t include an introduction or conclusion [6].” 

From ink to code – the evolution of medical writing in the AI era

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Medical writers should leverage generative AI tools as ‘copilots’, with documentation at each stage of the writing process, to avoid unintentionally propagating errors in scientific publications.

Ashish Uppala (Scite.ai) discussed medical writing in the era of AI. The arrival of generative AI tools has enabled writers to delegate a greater proportion of cognitive load than ever before. However, the human writer is still responsible for the thinking process – this was true historically when words were written physically on clay and then using pen and paper, and is still true today.

Rather than using generative AI tools as automated agents, which might increase the risk of bias and error propagation, Uppala encouraged writers to leverage these tools as copilots to optimise efficiency, with documentation at each step of the process. To avoid unintentionally propagating errors in publications, medical writers should use tools such as Scite.ai that ‘show their work’ by indicating the raw information used to generate an output. Uppala concluded his presentation by calling on medical writers to provide feedback to entrepreneurs to help improve generative AI tools for scientific publications.

The methods of written communication may have evolved, but humans are still responsible for the thinking process.

AI and IP: ramification for vendor, provider and customer agreements

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Medical writers should be aware of potential intellectual property issues when using AI tools. Writers and companies need to ensure they comply with all applicable laws when using AI.

Carlo Scollo Lavizzari’s (specialist in intellectual property protection) talk focussed on intellectual property (IP) in the context of AI. As the use of AI tools becomes more routine, organisations may need to update their legal contracts and agreements. IP legislation for AI is a highly evolving landscape, so companies need to be aware of changes to the law. There are IP considerations throughout the process of using AI, from the inputs used to prompt AI (which may contain existing IP), to the resulting outputs (which could infringe upon existing IP or constitute new IP). Protection of AI tools themselves using IP is also a current topic, with an increasing numbers of patent applications for AI-related inventions.

Lavizzari made the following recommendations for individuals and companies when using AI tools:

• understand and document all processes involving AI – eg, the tools and prompts used
• be aware of any restrictions from clients when using AI – eg, when AI tools cannot be used
• be aware of accuracy limitations of AI tools – they can often hallucinate
• know and follow the applicable laws – eg, the recent European Union (EU) AI Act
• follow guidelines and ethical best practices
• only agree to what you can do using AI, and try to state in vendor agreements what you will/will not do using AI tools
• document the responsibility falling upon the client – seek indemnity, warranty, and ‘hold harmless’ clauses
• think ‘insurance’.

Copyright and artificial intelligence: an overview of how they intersect

KEY TAKEAWAY

• LLMs are trained using vast amounts of copyrighted materials, and these materials are copied, stored, and recreated by the LLMs; collective licensing allows for the efficient utilisation of copyrighted materials by AI systems.

In his presentation, Victoriano Colodrón (Copyright Clearance Center) provided an overview of the basic principles of copyright and how copyright and generative AI intersect. Both economic and moral rights are implicated in the training of AI technologies. LLMs, for example, are trained using vast amounts of copyrighted materials, and these materials are copied, stored, and recreated by the LLMs.

Generative AI tools can infringe on copyright in two main ways:

1. Ingesting copyrighted materials during training
2. Producing output that contains identical or substantially similar material to the protected work

Although many countries have no specific AI-related laws and rely on existing statutes, a major development has been the recent approval of the EU AI Act, which emphasises that AI users need permission to utilise copyrighted work unless exceptions apply. Transparency is a key issue globally, and the EU AI Act will require generative AI providers to make a sufficiently detailed summary of copyrighted works used to train their systems publicly available, with a similar bill pending in the US.

A key question is how AI providers can obtain permissions to use protected works in their systems. Rather than using direct licensing from individual rightsholders, Colodrón recommended voluntary collective licensing, which involves the aggregation of rights from multiple rightsholders by a collective licensing organisation, which then collects royalties from users and distributes them to rightsholders. Collective licensing thus enables a faster and more convenient way for content users to gain access to rights.

Colodrón emphasised that outputs from generative AI tools are improved by the use of high quality, responsibly sourced copyrighted works, which increase accuracy and reduce bias, and thus it is in everyone’s best interests that AI is paired with respect for creators and copyright.

Generative AI tools can infringe on copyright by ingesting copyrighted materials and by producing output material that is identical or substantially similar to the original work. 

Neurobiological roots of artificial intelligence

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Since the inception of AI in the 1950s, there have been rapid advances in building technologies that aim to mimic human intelligence.

Pawel Boguszewski (Nencki Institute of Experimental Biology) discussed the evolution of intelligence in biology and in artificial systems. Although there is no one clear definition of intelligence, there is a general agreement that it is based on the ability to learn and apply information. We now know that rather than being a reactive machine, the human brain is a predictive machine, which allows it to respond to the environment in real time. Neuroscientists are now trying to elucidate the parts of the brain responsible for predicting events.

Just as living intelligence has evolved over time, the concept of AI has progressed from the Turing test in the 1950s, through to today’s LLMs. Many modern AI tools, for example Google DeepMind’s AlphaGo Zero, and AlphaFold, use artificial neural networks that were designed to mimic the living brain. Recent discussions have gone as far as asking whether AI has gained consciousness. Boguszewski remarked that there are two competing schools of thought on the modern definition of consciousness. The first (‘global workspace theories’) defines mental states as being conscious when they are broadcast within a global workspace in which frontoparietal networks play a central hub-like role; using this definition, a machine could be built that is said to have consciousness. The second (‘integrated information theory’) states that consciousness is identical to the cause-effect structure of a physical system that specifies a maximum of irreducible integrated information; using this latter definition, a machine cannot be conscious. Boguszewski concluded his talk by drawing the audience’s attention to the impressive advancements that are taking place in both neuroscience and AI today, which may further improve understanding of our own intelligence.

Many modern AI tools use artificial neural networks that were designed to mimic the living brain.

Ethical considerations in AI-supported medical writing

KEY TAKEAWAY

• AI users should be aware of the ethical challenges and limitations associated with data-driven technologies.

In his talk, Mike Katell (The Alan Turing Institute) discussed ethics in the context of AI. Katell defined AI ethics as the set of tools for guiding responsible choices for the design, development, and deployment of digital technology. The SAFE-D (Sustainability, Accountability, Fairness, Explanaibility, Data stewardship) principles, for example, serve as a starting point to reflect upon the possible harms and benefits associated with data-driven technologies.

Katell highlighted several key challenges when considering ethics in AI:

1. AI is not a single technology, but rather is an evolving concept that comprises multiple different tools
2. Contemporary AI was developed originally for marketing purposes rather than for more demanding and strict fields such as medicine
3. There are multiple decisions involved in the design, development, and use of generative AI systems that shape the outputs of these systems
4. While some generative AI tools are highly supervised, other tools such as ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini are largely automated without human intervention, which makes it difficult to monitor how outputs are generated from a given input
5. Generative AI tools are trained to produce plausible outputs rather than facts, and in this way can be thought of as highly complex ‘autocompletes’. ChatGPT, for example, is unable to solve some simple mathematical problems, and though Google’s Med-PaLM can provide accurate information in response to a query, this information is often incomplete

Key questions include who should be accountable if a system causes harm, and who should take responsibility for actions that cannot be explained – the AI company, the user, or the decision maker? Katell emphasised the need for caution around the claims of cost savings and enhanced capabilities made by AI tools in the long term, and highlighted some of the larger issues of AI at play, such as labour issues, the environmental costs of AI, and concentration of power by a small number of companies.

Users of AI technologies should be aware of the downsides of such tools from an ethical standpoint, in addition to the benefits that they bring. 

Ethical challenges and considerations to implementing AI in healthcare; a Research Ethics Committee perspective

KEY TAKEAWAY

• There are additional ethical challenges that need to be addressed in clinical research studies that use AI technologies, including those surrounding data sharing, data bias, autonomy, and transparency.

Alison Rapley (Freelance Medical Writing Consultant) gave an overview of the ethical concerns that need to be considered in clinical research studies that utilise AI, such as studies that involve patient monitoring, or prediction or diagnosis of illness through digital health applications and platforms. Rapley identified the following potential issues:

1. Sharing of patient data: considerations such as what level of data is necessary for the AI model being used or built, and how such data are stored and transmitted are important to address, but most importantly, it is critical to ensure that how data will be shared has been made clear to the participants of the study in order to retain patient trust
2. Fairness, inclusiveness, and equity: data and AI algorithms should not be biased – many AI models are trained using biobank data, which are inherently biased towards particular patient groups
3. Autonomy: human autonomy should supersede machine autonomy, and AI technologies should be used as tools rather than relied upon without human intervention
4. Transparency, explainability, and intelligibility: the purpose and use of AI needs to be made clear to the study organisations and participants; AI technologies should be explainable to different audiences, eg, patients, developers, and regulators
5. Risk/benefit ratio: safeguards should be put in place, especially when it comes to sensitive patient data, and just because you can use AI, it doesn’t mean you should

Just because you can use AI, it doesn’t mean you should.

Artificial intelligence: pharma view

KEY TAKEAWAY

• The benefits and risks of AI should be balanced to put patients first; it is more important than ever that patients have access to trustworthy information and data.

Uma Swaminathan (GSK) and Art Gertel (MedSciCom) co-presented a talk on AI from the perspectives of pharmaceutical companies and the general public. Swaminathan highlighted that patients, ethics, and trust should be at the centre of the pharmaceutical industry. AI can bring important benefits for patients, such as accelerated innovation and greater efficiency, and therefore faster approval of new treatments. However, these benefits need to be balanced with the risks, which include questions of accountability and explainability, and data privacy and data/algorithm bias.

AI should be human-centric, with human accountability. Company policies should be updated to ensure that they are fit for purpose for AI, and there should be proactive risk management and robust governance in place. Decisions should be made collectively and collaboratively, rather than by individuals, to ensure ethical practice.

Gertel emphasised the importance of patient trust in the context of AI. Healthcare decisions are no longer being made solely by the physician: many patients are now taking on the role of partners in their care decisions, by consulting technologies such as Google, and now AI, for information. It is more important than ever that patients have access to trustworthy material supporting the principles that healthcare is safe, effective, patient-centred, timely, efficient, and equitable.

It is more important than ever that patients have access to trustworthy material supporting the principles that healthcare is safe, effective, patient-centred, timely, efficient, and equitable.

 Patient perspective on generative AI

KEY TAKEAWAY

• There are opportunities for generative AI tools to assist with each stage of the patient journey.

Mitchell Silva’s (Esperity & Patient Centrics) talk focussed on AI from the patient’s point of view. Silva noted that there are opportunities for generative AI tools to assist with patients’ needs at all stages of their journey, from earlier detection of symptoms and accelerated diagnosis, to better disease understanding and optimised treatment decisions. For example, patients can upload their medical files to ChatGPT to obtain lay information, and deep fake avatars can be used by time-poor physicians to educate patients and answer their questions in the patient’s language.

Silva urged caution regarding some of the potential negative effects of generative AI tools, namely data privacy, accuracy and reliability, and regulatory compliance (for example with General Data Protection Regulation).

Generative AI can assist patients with better understanding of their disease.

 Why not read our summary of the afternoon session of the symposium.

——————————————————–

Written as part of a Media Partnership between EMWA and The Publication Plan, by Aspire Scientific, a proudly independent medical writing and communications agency that believes in putting people first.

——————————————————–

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 third 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 also read our summaries of Day 1 and Day 2 of the meeting.

Summaries of Day 3

Publishing reimagined and the evolution of disseminating medical research

KEY TAKEAWAY

• With the transformative changes in journal publishing (including the move to digital formats and open access publishing), there is a need to reimagine publications while taking care to maintain quality and accurately assess their impact.

Jonathan Patience (Taylor & Francis Group), Mark Riotto (TheResearchPost), Stephen Towers (Healthcare Consultancy Group), and Rebecca Rozich (ICON) opened Day 3 by engaging in a topical interactive session about current trends in the publication of medical research and their impact on the future of publishing.

Changes in journal publishing

In the first presentation, Patience reviewed the dramatic changes in medical journal publishing seen over the past 25 years, highlighting the:

• shift from print to electronic publishing
• declaration of open access mandates from funding organisations
• proliferation of open access journals.

While these changes have undoubtably improved accessibility and knowledge dissemination, some challenges have arisen, such as information overload, potential erosion in the quality of submissions, strain on the peer review system, threats from preprint platforms, and a rise in predatory journals. Proposals to overcome these challenges include:

• use of new formats to disseminate information to a time-poor audience
• approaches to maintain publication integrity and quality peer review
• changes to publishing revenue models to improve accessibility and speed of publication
• application of precise metrics (eg, using artificial intelligence [AI]) to focus on reaching the ‘right’ audience.

Publishing reimagined

In a thought-provoking presentation, Riotto looked at how the drive for accessibility is challenging the traditional model of publishing. He first questioned whether long-form primary manuscripts may be outdated and suggested that short forms (extenders, visual formats, etc.) may soon be reimagined as the primary publication. However, long-form papers will always be needed for scientific validation.

To expedite publication and provide a solution to funder mandates for better accessibility, Riotto went on to propose transformative agreements for new publication models, including:

• contracts with publishers that seek to shift payments away from a subscription model and towards open access publishing
• payment bundles that include both reading (subscription) and publishing (open access) under a single contract (‘read and publish’).

Maintaining quality and integrity

Subsequently, Patience deliberated how publishers can act to maintain quality and integrity in the face of increasing volumes of submissions. He proposed several responses to drivers for change:

Patience indicated that, while it remains the ‘gold standard’, peer review may be improved through measures such as reviewer training, reviewer pool expansion, reward schemes, increased editorial resource, pre-screening of manuscripts, new models of review (eg, open peer review), and ethics education.

Peer review may be improved through measures such as reviewer training, reviewer pool expansion, reward schemes, increased editorial resource, pre-screening of manuscripts, new models of review, and ethics education.

Improving metrics

In the final presentation of this session, Towers highlighted that article-level metrics have revolutionised our ability to measure the attention of, and real-time impact of publications on, a broad audience, but several challenges remain, including how to:

• determine the ‘real’ impact of publications — solutions might include use of more granular metrics and introduction of AI- or natural language processing-based text analysis to assess if a citation supports the original article
• deal with a lack of transparency, standardisation, and consistency in publication metrics scoring — solutions might include application of the EMPIRE Index and multi-stakeholder collaboration to agree on universal standards and definitions
• prevent self-promotion via manipulation of publication metrics — solutions might include use of AI to detect manipulation and reducing institutional drivers of the ‘pressure to publish’.

What do we see as the innovations over the next 5 or 10 years?

Considering this question in an interactive discussion, the panellists stated that they expect the following innovations in publishing in the near future:

• greater interactivity – expanded use of visual and digital publications, and extenders
• increased collaboration among stakeholders over publishing models
• growth of open data initiatives
• consolidation of business models, including expansion of journal ‘families’
• better use of storytelling
• journals taking a more curatorial role over publications
• more initiatives to counter ‘bad actors’ to improve trust in publications.

Metrics on the horizon: how do we measure success of publications in a rapidly evolving technological world?

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Employing AI technologies and a data-driven approach to publication insight generation can help to broaden the reach and impact of medical publications.

The theme in this parallel session was the evolving landscape of metrics for measuring success in medical publications. Tomas Rees (Oxford PharmaGenesis),  Jim Streeter (Envision Pharma Group), and Kimberly Della Penna (Johnson & Johnson) explored different methods for evaluating success and discussed the potential for new technologies to impact on publication planning strategies.

Rees began by outlining the array of different metrics that have found use in medical publications. Reflecting on over a decade’s experience with publication metrics, he explained how different metrics can measure different aspects of engagement with a publication, but that some metrics were more valuable than others. For example, citations from credible sources are typically given more credence than social media shares. Furthermore, while different metrics can offer different types of insight, not all metrics are directly actionable. Rather than being used as performance targets, the purpose of publication metrics is to assess alignment between a publication and its overall goal.

In the next part of the session, Streeter elaborated on how the massive amount of data being collected on publications can be leveraged to inform decision making and improve the impact of publications. The emergence of AI as a tool will offer opportunities to analyse these ‘big data’ to generate meaningful publication insights. However, Streeter saw existing AI models as a starting point on which further bespoke functionality would need to be built to interpret and utilise data for specific use cases.

“The layers that go on top of these AI models are going to become very important so that we can get the right data at the right time.” – Jim Streeter

Real-time data was another concept that Streeter saw as crucial to understanding how people engage with publications. For example, understanding how long someone spends viewing a specific graph or section of text could be used to gauge their comprehension of the publication. Analysis in real-time could also allow content to be adapted more quickly and targeted or re-aligned to suit a specific type of user or a specific demographic. Acknowledging that there were privacy considerations involved with collecting and analysing information at a patient or healthcare professional level, Streeter described the importance of understanding and defining what constitutes an ethical approach for this type of insight generation.

Emphasising the need to incorporate data science and AI into everyday workflows, Streeter summarised that we are ready to start using these data-driven approaches to make better decisions about how we create, distribute, and measure the impact of our publications.

“We hear about AI, the amount of data that’s coming and really the value it’s going to bring so that we can make better decisions with our publications.” – Jim Streeter

End-to-end patient involvement

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Patient involvement in the development of medical treatments is an exciting new frontier that offers excellent value for all stakeholders but is dependent on strict guidance and a clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities of patients.

In this parallel session, Jasmine Malone (Open Health) introduced a varied panel of speakers, Robert Greene (patient advocate, HungerNdThirst Foundation), Behtash Bahador (CISCRP), and Hamish McDougall (SAGE Publications), to discuss key elements of end-to-end patient involvement in clinical development.

The importance of end-to-end involvement from the patient’s perspective

Greene provided his personal perspective on the importance of patient involvement throughout the drug development process and treatment landscapes. He began by reminding the audience that patients are individuals, which means that one patient is not necessarily representative of the full population. Despite this, Greene explained that patients provide unique insights and experiences that can enhance the relevance and reach of research and publications. Ensuring information is accessible, understandable, and reflective of real-world experience is the best way to build transparency and trust; provision of fair and ethical compensation when engaging patients was also noted as a critical factor.

Several ways to increase patient involvement were highlighted, such as training programmes and communications strategies created with patient involvement as a core starting element, advisory panels at the patient or patient advocacy group level, and encouraging collaborations between patients and groups such as pharma companies and medical publishers for the co-creation of materials.

Ensuring information is accessible, understandable, and reflective of real-world experience is the best way to build transparency and trust.

Demonstrating the value of end-to-end patient involvement

Bahador opened his presentation by defining patient involvement as “collaboration with patients in their communities to understand and address their needs across all stages of medicinal product development”. He showed the EUPATI model of patient involvement, which describes opportunities for working with patients beginning at the early stages of research design all the way through to the communication of trial results post-approval. To assist with this, there are established standards, frameworks, and guidance for patient engagement in research and development processes. The development of clinical trial lay summaries was held up as an example of where patient input is crucial in determining what information from clinical study reports patients are interested in and how to effectively communicate trial results to them. Bahador went on to explain how patient engagement has led to improved study cycle times, better retention in studies, increased patient satisfaction and, ultimately, better health outcomes for patients. Regulatory bodies like the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) are also now emphasising the importance of patient involvement in setting research priorities, identifying key endpoints, and designing trials. Community engagement initiatives such as developing culturally relevant resources, conducting surveys to gather feedback, and mobile education initiatives aimed at increasing awareness and understanding of clinical research were also highlighted as important tools for increasing patient involvement.

Patient engagement has led to improved study cycle times, better retention in studies, increased patient satisfaction and, ultimately, better health outcomes for patients.

Opportunities and best practices for patient involvement in publications

The final presentation in the session was given by McDougall, who provided a publisher’s perspective on best practices in patient involvement. He offered several insights, beginning with the observation that because patient involvement in publications offers many advantages for publishers, it is crucial they do not lose sight of patients’ diverse experiences and challenges during the process. Currently, there are 2 primary roles for patients in the publications landscape: peer reviewers and authors. Patients can contribute to peer review by ensuring plain language and accessibility, especially for language-oriented publications. Patients can also be involved as authors, but it is essential they fit authorship criteria and are provided with adequate guidance and support. Patient perspective articles or journals provide valuable qualitative information, particularly in areas with limited quantitative data; however, McDougall reiterated that guidance is needed to ensure patients understand their responsibilities, can avoid ethical issues, and feel empowered to be involved throughout the process. Other best practice approaches for involving patients include recognising diverse levels of experience and providing fair compensation.

Because patient involvement in publications offers many advantages for publishers, it is crucial they do not lose sight of patients’ diverse experiences and challenges during the process.

Guided poster tour

Plain Language Summaries was the theme for the guided poster tour on Day 3, with 4 featured posters:

• AI’s might vs human prowess in crafting plain language summaries
• Cracking the code: how discoverable are plain language summaries?
• Readability of plain language summaries (PLS): are they getting better?
• Standalone plain language summaries of publications: a 5-year trend analysis

Keynote: Generative AI: practical strategies to increase productivity

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Generative AI (GenAI) is changing the way we work and can dramatically increase productivity, but its effective adoption requires behavioural change.

Conor Grennan (NYU Stern School of Business), who delivered an interactive keynote session on GenAI, started by posing a question: given that the GenAI tool ChatGPT is accessible and has no learning curve, why is it difficult to master? The answer, he suggests, is that it requires behavioural change.

What is ChatGPT replacing?

ChatGPT reached 1 million users 3 days following its launch, much faster than streaming services such as Netflix and Spotify. However, Grennan explained that while it is obvious to our brains that Netflix replaces videos and Spotify replaces CDs, it is unclear what ChatGPT is replacing. He highlighted the need to “break down the paradigm that ChatGPT is the same as a search engine”, assumed because its interface resembles that of Google search.

It is obvious to our brains that Netflix replaces videos and Spotify replaces CDs; it is unclear what ChatGPT is replacing.

Focus on needs, not use cases

Grennan pointed out that the use of AI tools is already widespread (take spellcheckers, for example), but they are running in the background. He likened the potential of GenAI to that of electricity: although electricity is an integral part of everyday modern life, it is easiest to explain its benefits using specific examples, such as lightbulbs. So instead of considering use cases for GenAI, Grennan stressed the importance of considering what needs exist.

Perfect prompting

“Forget prompt engineering – just talk to ChatGPT like a human!” This was Grennan’s top tip at the start of his live demonstration of how ChatGPT can help with tasks such as:

• explaining something in different ways for different audiences, using the example prompt: “Can you explain immunotherapy to three different people, giving me a short script for each – the three people are: an MIT PhD in science, an elderly farmer and a 10-year-old obsessed with monster trucks”
• drafting emails
• coming up with creative ways to introduce new employees to company culture
• strategising (eg, identifying the steps involved in starting a new company).

“Forget prompt engineering – just talk to ChatGPT like a human!” – Conor Grennan

Solving the biggest problems

Grennan explained that while ChatGPT’s first answer to a question may be short and simple, further prompting can provide exactly the right information needed. Therefore, users need to go deeper, since continuing to ask about individual details will lead to better answers. To mitigate against AI ‘hallucinations’, Grennan advised double checking ChatGPT outputs, particularly when precision was important.

Double check everything if you need precision – ChatGPT is better as a reasoning tool than a knowledge tool.

The future intersection of medical affairs and publications – are you ready for it?

KEY TAKEAWAY

• A cross-functional working relationship between publications and medical affairs will be essential for navigating the rapidly changing publications landscape.

Gary Lyons (Avalere Health) presented an interesting and engaging session, which began with an emphasis on the increasingly important role that medical affairs plays in the delivery of content in what is now a rapidly evolving landscape. It was reasoned that the increased complexity of the current landscape is being driven by digital technology, the emergence of omnichannel strategy, and utilisation of modular content. During his presentation, Lyons covered the 4 key components on the path to engagement: audiences, content, channels, and capabilities.

Audiences

Lyons emphasised the importance of considering multiple audiences when developing a publication, including experts, specialists, communities, patients, and patient advocates. He explained that we should not expect the information to trickle down this cascade of potential audiences, but, instead, content should be developed to reach out to a broader audience.

How an audience prefers to receive content was also highlighted as a key consideration, as there has been an increase in demand for information to be delivered digitally. Despite this increase in demand, a digital divide exists between the preference for digital delivery and the actual availability of information and data via digital channels.

We should not expect the information to trickle down the cascade of potential audiences, but, instead, content should be developed to reach out to a broader audience.

Content

In the next part of the session, content was discussed, with an emphasis on the growing need for conciseness. To achieve this, Lyons recommended that digital features and enhanced publication content should be considered when possible.

Channels

Connecting the dots between different channels to create a journey of engagement should be a key aim in the development of all publications. It is therefore important to consider all content that is being created alongside a publication, such as training slide decks and enhanced publication content, and how these channels can be connected.

Connecting the dots between different channels to create a journey of engagement should be a key aim in the development of all publications.

Capabilities

Two key points were outlined in this section of the presentation: the growing need for modular content and the future role of AI in supporting publications. Modular content was described as a way of fragmenting content into smaller pieces that can be pre-approved and then used for future engagement. Thinking of ways to use content in a more fragmented way can help increase the speed and flexibility of future content development and delivery, especially when requested at short notice.

Lyons suggested that AI may have a supporting role to play in publication development, highlighting 3 specific points at which AI could be utilised:

• kick off calls, to produce a summary of meeting discussions
• post-draft development, to help with data checks, CONSORT checklists, and proofreading
• post-submission, to assist with creation of enhanced publication content.

To navigate the ever-changing and increasingly complex publications landscape, there will be a need to embrace omnichannel planning, utilise modular content, and find ways to use AI to help drive content creation and improve efficiency.

Towards patient-friendly electronic product information (ePI)

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Current product information (PI) is not fit for purpose – moving to ePI provides an opportunity to link to patient-friendly materials providing medical information in plain language.

Panellists Chris Winchester (Oxford PharmaGenesis), Trishna Bharadia (patient advocate, The Spark Global), Behtash Bahador (CISCRP), Catherine Skobe (Pfizer), and Christopher Rains (CPR BioPharma Consulting) shared their thoughts on the journey towards patient-friendly ePI.

The evolution of product information

Winchester kicked off the session by outlining the journey towards digital transformation of PI. Although paper PI is still very much alive, it is widely unread, and recent years have seen a transition away from the paper format. Winchester elaborated, explaining how we are currently in the PDF PI era and edging towards the digital era, where PI could be tailored towards indication, patient information preferences, and the background of the reader. The clear shift in the FDA’s perspective on PI since the first half of the 20^th century signals that what was once considered a back-covering exercise is now regarded as an integral part of motivating better health outcomes.

Are current product information leaflets fit for purpose?

Discussing the evolving perspective on ePI and the role of publication professionals, Bharadia noted that PI leaflets have made some progress towards becoming patient friendly in the UK, but in other countries, such as the US, they are far from being suitable. She stressed the importance of the patient as the intended audience and that the current ‘one size fits all’ approach is suboptimal, given the variation in health literacy among patients.

What is driving the digitisation of product information?

Rains explained that, as it stands in the EU, ePI must be identical to paper PI, and paper PI must also be provided. Consequently, each year, 500,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide and 11 billion gallons of water are needed to produce the 100 billion paper PI leaflets printed.

Bahador stated that the high appetite for plain language materials and increased patient engagement is certainly a driver in the digitisation of PI. Moreover, results from a recent Global Perceptions and Insights Survey revealed that sharing more information in understandable terms drives trust and matters to patients.

Each year, 500,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide and 11 billion gallons of water are needed to produce the 100 billion paper PI leaflets printed.

How can ePI best meet the needs of patients and other audiences?

Suggestions for how ePI can best meet patients’ needs from Skobe and Bharadia included:

• ePIs should contain links to publications and, most importantly, plain language summaries. This can facilitate understanding of scientific jargon, reaping benefits such as increased medication compliance.
• ePI development should involve the intended audience, including patients and patient organisations, such as the Patient Information Forum.

How can publications and medical communications professionals get involved in optimising ePI?

Rains urged publications professionals to work closely with cross-functional teams, including regulatory/labelling colleagues, in the journey towards optimised ePI. Publication teams are already creating content in different formats for different audiences (eg, plain language summaries of publication). Linking these materials to product labels offers the perfect opportunity to see them used in settings beyond journal publications.

Wrapping up the discussion, the panel issued a call to action, suggesting publications professionals leverage the momentum behind the current focus on patient-centric materials to ensure regulatory teams are aware of the patient-centric materials they produce.

Publications professionals can leverage the momentum behind the current focus on patient-centric materials to ensure regulatory teams are aware of the patient-centric materials they produce.

Hot topics and meeting highlights

Bringing the 20^th Anniversary Meeting of ISMPP to a close, Jenny Ghith (Pfizer), Tomas Rees (Oxford PharmaGenesis), Jason Gardner (Real Chemistry), Richard Davis (ApotheCom), and Rob Matheis (President and CEO, ISMPP) reflected on the hottest topics and highlights from the meeting.

Storytelling

The panel promoted the important role of medical communications professionals as storytellers, emphasising the need for different storytelling approaches for different outputs. Ghith saw the role of medical writers as ‘inventors’ with the task of bridging the gap between different stakeholders and leveraging storytelling across teams.

“We are all storytellers, but we just maybe don’t realise it. Everything we do is about telling stories.” – Tomas Rees

Artificial intelligence

Ghith described how we have passed the initial ‘hype’ phase for AI applications in medical communications and now find ourselves in the ‘trough of disillusionment’, where we will meet and take on the challenges and limitations of AI after the initial period of excitement. For Rees and Gardner, a key take-home message was that human input was essential for successful implementation of AI tools. While AI can analyse data and identify patterns, it cannot provide insight on the key question of why the data are what they are. Matheis felt that connecting and feeding AI systems with appropriate context would ensure relevant and usable outputs, while Davis reiterated the importance of understanding the distinction between GenAI and other (non-generative) types of AI.

AI is a tool that can enhance human intelligence, not replace it.

Patients

A key theme emerging from this year’s sessions on patient involvement in medical communications was that patients’ voices must be integrated into discussion about AI, ensuring their concerns and needs are addressed throughout the process. Gardner stressed the importance of non-traditional outcomes to make sure the patient voice is incorporated into medical communications. Reflecting on the session on ePI, Rees thought that there was an opportunity to address the accessibility of product information, using ePI tools to generate more patient-friendly materials. Considering how often patients are required to make active healthcare decisions, Matheis felt there was a need to be mindful of what information was available to patients and how it was presented to them – and this all comes back to a need for effective storytelling.

“We have to be mindful that as we put medical information out there, patients are making decisions for themselves – they have different needs and different ways of processing information – it all comes full circle to storytelling.” – Rob Matheis

Publishing metrics and insights

Rees finished with the hot topic of publishing metrics and insights, noting the increasing interest in metrics due to the need to show the value of what we do as medical publications professionals. He thought that current metrics did not always capture a publication’s true impact, so he was encouraged by the level and direction of discussions surrounding metrics and excited by the progress to be made by the ISMPP Social Media & Web-based Metrics Committee on metrics in the near future.

Every publication has its own goal, so there’s a need for increased sophistication about how we measure achievement of that goal.

Why not also read the summaries of Day 1 and Day 2 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 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.

——————————————————–

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 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 of the meeting here, and our summary of Day 3 here. 

Summaries of Day 1

Opening remarks and presidential address

KEY TAKEAWAY

• ISMPP celebrates the 20^th year of ISMPP and the 15^th year of CMPP. ISMPP continues to improve and grow year-on-year.

Robert Matheis (President and CEO, ISMPP) opened the meeting by celebrating 20 years of ISMPP, highlighting the growth year-on-year, from 12 founding members to an impressive current 2,580 members! Matheis emphasised that the ultimate goal in medical publications is to optimise patient care and noted that as we are entering a new era in publications, embracing our history is the key to our future. Key ISMPP achievements from the past and upcoming year include the establishment of the artificial intelligence (AI) task force; updated website with eLearning; launch of a patient scholarship programme; improvements in accessibility (for example, live captioning was available for presentations at the meeting); new Certified Medical Publication Professional (CMPP) software (to be rolled out later this year); and the transition from ISMPP West to ISMPP Academy. The strong productivity of the restructured committees was also highlighted; over 300 members are involved with ISMPP committees and the introduction of two task forces – artificial intelligence (AI) and patient engagement – has led to multiple accomplishments and activities. Matheis rounded up his address with a call to action to volunteer with ISMPP!

Dana Fox (Caudex) provided an update on the CMPP programme. Fox congratulated CMPP on 15 years of professional excellence in medical publications, and discussed how CMPPs have demonstrated expertise, proficiency, commitment and leadership. There are over 1,662 CMPPs worldwide, represented across six continents, with several new countries included this year. The importance of CMPP mentors was emphasised and Fox encouraged CMPPs to consider participating in the mentor program. Fox finished by summarising what 2024 holds for CMPPs, noting the availability of the remote online exam option and the new certification platform to come later this year.

Keynote: The brain science of story and its impact on communication

KEY TAKEAWAY

• The most successful stories start with an ‘unexpected middle’ that lead the reader or audience to ask themselves ‘why’ and find out more; AI focuses on the ‘what’ rather than the ‘why’, and therefore cannot create an effective narrative.

Angus Fletcher (Ohio State University) delivered the first keynote presentation of the meeting, which focused on the brain science of storytelling, and the associated challenges and opportunities for effective communication.

Stories versus data

Fletcher began the session by highlighting that stories are far more powerful than data or information alone. The art of storytelling was championed 2,000 years ago by orators such as Cicero, but has perhaps been forgotten in the current age of data AI.

Evolution of narrative cognition

During the Cambrian explosion 525 million years ago, the brain evolved to identify complex patterns in the environment (computation) and to facilitate creative actions (narrative cognition) as a means of competition and survival. Fletcher emphasised that storytelling therefore evolved not for the purposes of communication, but rather for thinking.

Storytelling in the brain

Fletcher noted that storytelling in the brain is triggered by an unexpected event, which leads it to ask ‘why’ the event happened (causal thinking), followed by ‘what if’ the event continues or happens again (counterfactual thinking). Thus, effective stories begin with an ‘unexpected middle’ that leads the reader or audience to ask themselves ‘why’, before moving back to the beginning, and then to the end. Notable examples of successful storytelling that follow this trajectory include Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope, and Nike’s 1988 Just Do It campaign.

Unexpected middles

Unexpected middles compel the reader to ask themselves ‘why’ by using threats to stimulate fear, or by using opportunities to stimulate curiosity. While fear is most effective at inducing behavioural changes in the short term, curiosity is more powerful than fear over a longer period. The ‘Know Your Lemons’ campaign, for example, successfully uses curiosity rather than fear to increase awareness of early symptoms of breast cancer.

Unexpected middles compel the reader to ask themselves ‘why’ by using threats to stimulate fear, or by using opportunities to stimulate curiosity. While fear is most effective at inducing behavioural changes in the short term, curiosity is more powerful than fear over a longer period.

Fletcher highlighted that because AI uses computation rather than narrative cognition, it cannot ask ‘why’ or notice unexpected middles, and therefore will never be able to replace humans to develop original communication.

Storytelling in medical writing

Within the field of medical writing, Fletcher mentioned two famous works that both start in the middle of a story: ‘Merck’s 1899 Manual’ by Merck & Co., and ‘The Principles and Practice of Medicine’ by Sir William Osler that was first published in 1892 – the former stimulating fear in the reader with the opening sentence ‘Memory is treacherous.’, and the latter inspiring curiosity with incomplete information. Fletcher concluded that although modern medical writing publications may be restricted in terms of structure and format, the writer can still introduce an unexpected middle at the beginning of the introduction, thus motivating the reader to continue on to the data, or the ‘what’. Medical writers should aim to be storytellers when developing publications, rather than simply providing the reader with information and data.

Humanising the patient experience with insights derived from novel measures of QoL

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Novel non-traditional approaches are useful for assessing and measuring patient experience and QoL and include social media listening and the use of AI; however, it is crucial to ensure that these approaches are truly reflective of the patient experience.

During this plenary session, Mary James (Real Chemistry), Theresa Schmidt (Real Chemistry), Michael Mittelman (patient advocate), and Mary Michael (Otsuka) discussed non-traditional approaches to assessing and measuring patient experience and quality of life (QoL).

Mittelman opened the session by sharing his experience of being a kidney transplant recipient from a living donor and his subsequent role as caregiver to the donor (his mother). Although there is no shortage of data on the QoL of transplant recipients, Mittelman highlighted that important evidence gaps exist, such as the psychosocial impact of being a recipient from a living donor, and the experiences of living donors themselves.

Defining patient experience

In order to measure patient experience, it is important to be clear about the concepts in question, which broadly encompass patient experience of care and health-related QoL. According to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, patient experience of care “encompasses the range of interactions that patients have with the healthcare system, including their care from [providers and payers]”. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) defines health-related QoL as “a multidomain concept that represents the patient’s general perception of the effect of illness and treatment on physical, psychological, and social aspects of life”.

The ‘whys’ and ‘hows’ of measuring patient experience

It was highlighted that the measurement of patient experience and QoL is not only important for research purposes (for example, to assess the efficacy of an intervention in improving patients’ lives) but also to understand barriers to access to care (such as discrimination and marginalisation), and thereby improve clinical care, inform value-based care, and help ensure that communication strategies are as effective as possible.

Traditional methods of measuring patient experience and QoL have relied on clinician-administered assessments, such as Activities of Daily Living, and patient-reported outcome measures. These typically comprise structured surveys and questionnaires to capture information on, for example, symptoms, experience of care, treatment satisfaction, and QoL. Qualitative methods may also be used, such as interviews, focus groups and advisory boards. However, being designed by researchers, these traditional methods do not necessarily reflect what is most important to patients. Non-traditional approaches are therefore required to illuminate the “patient as a person” and help clarify more precise and meaningful care outcomes.

Non-traditional approaches encompass social media listening, AI and natural language processing (NLP), and the generation of synthetic patient cohorts (based on claims data) and AI patient personas. The panel noted that social media listening can be particularly valuable in helping to understand the language/lexicon and sentiment of a particular patient community, highlighting that “we in the [medical publishing] community have an opportunity and obligation to become culturally humble to the community we serve”. Generative AI can also be helpful in producing imagery to convey patient feelings and sentiments that are difficult to articulate into words, which may be useful in the medical communications setting. A live poll of the audience revealed that some attendees are already using non-traditional data sources and methods, particularly social media listening and NLP.

Social media listening can be particularly valuable in helping to understand the language/lexicon and sentiment of a particular patient community.

A note of caution

Although the panel members acknowledged the many potential benefits of non-traditional measures (including the ability to capture unsolicited patient perspectives, address data scarcity, and amplify previously unheard voices), they also highlighted important challenges and risks. These include lack of transparency, standards for data quality and methods, and regulation regarding privacy, and the potential for ‘AI hallucination’, whereby AI may create anomalous inferences that are unrelated to real human experience. In particular, it is crucial that patients are themselves involved in the development and use of these new approaches; an issue being championed by The Light Collective, which has initiated the Patients AI Rights Initiative to advance the rights, interests, and voices of patients in health AI. 

Roundtable sessions

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

• Going back to the start: rethinking the scientific communication platform for better evidence storytelling
• Exploring the role of consensus methods in biomedicine
• Where are the data? Challenges and controversies in data sharing
• Catching the AI wave: balancing innovation to harmonise digital omnichannel storytelling
• Promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion in the global age of medical communications
• Leveraging actionable insights for effective medical communication strategies
• Open forum discussion for newer medical publication professionals
• Local, regional, global publication plans – challenges to effective alignment
• Tackling author challenges in the changing world of publications
• Science friction: using conflict to enrich stories in HEOR publications
• Evoking patient trust in rare disease: utilising digital opinion leaders (DOLs) to drive global clinical trial enrolment
• How will increased use of real-world evidence by regulators influence medical publications?
• Digital engagement in publications​: optimising reach, engagement, and impact​
• Driving your career and setting yourself apart

My voice, my story: embracing the patient experience to elevate publications

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Patient engagement and patient experience data are essential to ensure that patient perspectives are incorporated into evidence generation and dissemination.

In this moderated panel discussion, Wilson Joe (Lumanity), Yaswant Dayaram (Bayer), Hayley Chapman (Patient Focused Medicines Development [PFMD]), and Jill Feldman (patient advocate) explored strategies to integrate patient perspectives into the development and execution of evidence generation and dissemination.

Feldman began by sharing her experience as a lung cancer patient and advocate, highlighting the importance of remembering that “behind every data point is a patient and family whose lives are profoundly impacted”. Those involved in research and evidence dissemination must therefore engage with patients and caregivers to obtain reliable information on the impact of a disease, condition or treatment on patients’ lives. Moreover, the language used to disseminate information is crucially important; for example, when describing side effects, terms such as ‘tolerable’ or ‘acceptable’ minimise the patient perspective by not truly reflecting the lived experience of patients.

How can we effectively engage with patients?

Chapman explained that PFMD is a non-profit, global, disease-agnostic organisation that focuses on amplifying the voice of patients, enabling them to provide a meaningful and valuable contribution to healthcare decision making. The organisation provides free tools and resources to facilitate effective patient engagement. The benefits of patient engagement are far-reaching: in the clinical trial setting, it can speed up recruitment, decrease the need for protocol amendments, and help optimise retention; most importantly, patient engagement can result in better health outcomes for patients and the wider community. Consequently, investors and other stakeholders are increasingly questioning companies about how they engage with patients to identify unmet needs and what is most important to the patient community.

Patient experience data (PED)

PED provide information about patients’ experiences, perspectives, needs, and priorities, and can include data from patient-reported outcome measures, patient preference/satisfaction studies, and QoL measures. It was stressed that PED and patient engagement are distinct but go hand-in-hand: as the PFMD states, “Patient engagement can support PED to ensure patient-centricity of measurement, contextualisation of data, increased understanding of the evidence generated, and the co-creation of the design, generation, collection, and analysis of PED”.

Patient engagement across the lifecycle of drug development

The panel highlighted that patient engagement is needed from the beginning of product development and throughout its lifecycle, something that is becoming increasingly recognised within the medical publications industry. The recent American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting 2024 included a session entitled ‘Strategies to effectively communicate science to the public‘. Moreover, the importance of using patient-sensitive, respectful and inclusive language is increasingly being advocated by scientific organisations, such as the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC Language Guide) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN Language Guidance), as well as medical journals, such as The Lancet Oncology, which recently published an editorial entitled ‘Patient first; person first’.

Case study: plain language summary publications (PLSPs)

Bidirectional dialogue between patients and industry stakeholders is essential, and the generation of PLSPs was used to illustrate the importance of patient engagement from the earliest stages of the publication process. Potential patient authors can be identified via patient organisations and advocacy groups. Once identified, open dialogue between the patient authors and publication team is required, so that patient authors are fully aware of the importance of their involvement to the wider community, what to expect from the publication process (including the time commitment), and the tenets of good publication practice.

Embracing the paradigm shift

It was highlighted that recent years have seen a paradigm shift towards viewing patients as research partners rather than passive trial participants, something that should be embraced to ensure that patient perspectives and experiences are incorporated into every aspect of evidence generation and dissemination. Language is powerful: how you tell a story is important and words matter.

Language is powerful: how you tell a story is important and words matter.

Transformative dynamics: the vital role of scientific platforms in humanising science and shaping omnichannel evolution through collaborative partnerships within publications and medical affairs teams

KEY TAKEAWAY

• SCPs are a vehicle for leadership and change, designed to ensure a clear and accurate story is communicated, and provide cross-functional connection and alignment.

Scientific communication platforms (SCPs) may be defined as a strategic framework to ensure the consistent communication of a product’s evidence-based data and scientific narrative. During this session, Charlie Buckwell (IPG Health Medical Communications), David Hogben (Complete HealthVizion-IPG Health), Marie-Ludivine Chateau-Degat (Pfizer) and Jennifer Ghith (Pfizer) discussed the increasingly important role of SCPs in an evolving landscape.

Humanisation

Humanisation focuses on bringing the information held within a SCP to life and ensuring that it is connected with the overall scientific narrative. Understanding the audience is also a key factor, with respect to their persona, educational needs and how they want to access the information. This should allow the scientific statements to be connected to the target audience in an optimal approach and maximise the ability of the SCP to drive the overall medical communications plan. Consequently, the SCP will be more accessible to internal and external audiences, with the aim of ultimately shortening or closing the clinical care gap by aligning decision making by healthcare professionals (HCPs) to the scientific data.

Integration

The SCP needs to be integrated across the whole organisation to achieve a strong and unique voice across all stakeholders. Audience opinion indicated that SCPs are perceived to be important by publications and medical affairs teams, but perhaps less so by other industry functions (eg, commercial, medical information, R&D, and local market teams). The medical affairs and publications teams consider SCPs to be a foundational and guiding principle. The SCP can help position medical affairs and publications team members as leaders in communicating/sharing key medical information, making them integral members of cross-functional teams. It is important for medical affairs and publications teams to ensure that the global narrative is sufficiently cascaded to local teams to provide consistent communication. SCPs should be considered the indisputable centre of medical information and the anchor for achieving external acceptance of the narrative by HCPs.

It is important for medical affairs and publications teams to ensure that the global narrative is sufficiently cascaded to local teams to provide consistent communication.

Innovation and transformation

SCPs are generally developed within PowerPoint or digital platforms; it is important to think about possible unmet needs and develop the right tool for the right question. Technology is constantly providing newer capabilities that can be used and leveraged to facilitate greater understanding. AI and technology have the potential to change SCPs in several ways, such as improving speed/efficiency, integration and standardisation. However, some people may have less understanding of AI and technology and attach less value in their potential utility for SCPs. The adoption of AI and technology may depend on the overall needs and position in the lifecycle of clinical development. To help introduce technology, practical solutions may include working with cross-functional colleagues to allow collective ownership. Ultimately, it’s most important to understand the audience and provide the information they need in the most accessible method. Building SCPs can be time consuming, costly and intense. Technology can help people to find information within SCPs faster and more easily, leading to improved experiences.

The foundations and practical experience of using publication metrics

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Multiple types of publication metrics are currently available, which can be collectively measured and discussed cross functionally to help define the overall impact of publications.

Tomas Rees (Oxford PharmaGenesis), Doreen Valentine (Bristol Myers Squibb), Jonathan Lee (Takeda) and Sam Cavana (Taylor & Francis Group) discussed currently available publication metrics and their potential applicability.

Fundamentals of metrics

Metrics can help us understand the impact of publications and such learnings can be used to help drive strategic decisions and improvement. Publication metrics should be considered at the publication planning phase. Publication metric types include quantitative (eg, downloads and citation counts), qualitative (eg, sentiments, preferences and behaviours), mixed methods (eg, social media and omnichannel), and indicators associated with journals and congress targets.

Dimensions of impact

Engagement with a publication can be defined by reach, readership, activation and translational impact. To enhance reach (the number of people with the potential to read a publication), journal readership or congress attendance and features such as open access should be considered. To enhance readership (the number of people who have read a publication), we should consider multimodality options to enhance readability (eg, graphical abstracts, research in context). To enhance activation (the number of people who have interacted with a publication), multiple social media and audio/video channels should be taken into account. To enhance the translational impact of a publication on clinical practice, such as incorporation into practice guidelines or pathways, awareness initiatives for healthcare (eg, ad boards) or patient communities (eg, advocacy groups) should be considered. Thinking about these factors may help to make a publication more enduring and potentially impact clinical practice.

How to track and use metrics

Metrics should be used to inform journal selection strategy, proactively plan additional features/extenders and consider potential leverage from similar/complementary datasets. Article metrics may help to contextualise the impact and demonstrate the performance of a publication. Metrics can be considered as a tool and framework that are essentially a continuous loop – the outputs (post-publication impact of previous publications) can be used to inform the inputs (new publication tactics).

Metrics: which ones

Citation impact factor is the gold-standard metric and carries a lot of weight, but alternative metrics (eg, digital eminence algorithms) may also be of value. Overall metrics must be fit for purpose – a metric for measuring success may differ for different article types (eg, health economics versus Phase III clinical trial data). From the publisher’s perspective, downloads are probably the most important metric, in addition to citation metrics such as Altmetrics and CiteScore. The timeframe is also important – 12 months is probably most useful, especially for publication extenders which may be introduced at staggered timepoints.

Overall metrics must be fit for purpose – a metric for measuring success may differ for different article types.

Actionable insights: practical application of metrics

Publishers are keen to receive feedback on which metrics are important, eg, for different article types and different therapy areas. The panel advised publication teams to speak to publishers when planning a publication and not simply rely on tools which provide measures such as acceptance rate or time for review.

It is important to establish a process to share and discuss metrics cross functionally. Within the cross-functional framework, it is important to tailor how and what you communicate to the audience. Additionally, although metrics can be dry, they can help inject life into a story and emphasise how a specific publication has made a difference. Metrics are not a single point in time – to help measure the success of a publication, it is important that different pharmaceutical functions and publishers consistently collect all possible metrics data to help define a baseline – without a baseline it’s difficult to measure success. 

Guided poster tour: Trust and Accessibility

Attendees on Day 1 had the opportunity to attend a guided poster tour of the following posters that focus on Trust and Accessibility:

• Are HCPs leaving X? Analysing the evolving social media landscape
• Designing inclusive and accessible patient materials
• How does the inclusion of supplemental materials impact delegate engagement metrics? Lessons from a QR-coded poster database
• It takes many good deeds to build a good reputation 1: biopharma company attributes that are important to HCPs and consumers

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.

——————————————————–