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:
- Supporting talent diversity and inclusion
- Investing in learning and development (eg, through continuous professional development)
- 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 8th 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 20th 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.
——————————————————–
Categories