KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Traditional metrics like impact factor still influence journal selection and engagement, despite their limitations in assessing research quality.
• Enhanced publication content, including graphical abstracts and plain language summaries, improves healthcare professional engagement.

In an article for The MAP newsletter, Alexa Holland, Hamish McDougall, Radhika Bhatia, and Sarah J Clements highlight the importance of adopting novel metrics and enhanced publication content (EPC) to improve healthcare professional (HCP) engagement with scientific publications.

Re-evaluating journal metrics

In the evolving landscape of scientific publishing, traditional metrics like impact factor continue to dominate journal selection and readership decisions, despite their well-documented limitations. A survey conducted by Clements and colleagues, presented at the 2024 European Meeting of the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals, revealed that 57.9% of HCPs still rely on impact factor when selecting articles to read or choosing where to publish. However, such metrics do not always reflect the true value or reach of research.

57.9% of HCPs still rely on impact factor when selecting articles to read or choosing where to publish.

To move away from this outdated method of research assessment, publication professionals must advocate for a shift towards more diverse and transparent metrics, as outlined by the Declaration on Research Assessment. Additionally, efforts should focus on encouraging HCPs to engage with a more varied pool of publications, select appropriate target journals, and promote open access.

The EPC effect: more engagement, more impact

Elsewhere, the survey identified that graphical abstracts, plain language summaries, video summaries, and other forms of EPC are powerful tools for boosting engagement. 38.8% of HCPs are more likely to read publications with EPC, and research has also shown that articles featuring EPC tend to receive higher Altmetric scores and experience increased social media engagement than those without.

Despite the benefits, barriers such as development time, strict journal guidelines, and the fact that not all journals offer EPC options continue to hinder their broader implementation.

To enhance EPC impact and adoption, the authors recommend:

1. Educating HCPs on the importance of EPC and how to create it
2. Encouraging journals that have yet to implement EPC to adopt it
3. Advocating for standardised inclusion of EPC across journals

The authors identified future areas for exploration, including how EPC can influence clinical decision-making and patient education. By prioritising a more rigorous research evaluation process and promoting opportunities to implement EPC, the medical publishing industry can better support knowledge dissemination, ultimately improving patient outcomes.

————————————————–

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 15th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) was held in National Harbor on 15–17 April 2019. A summary of the first day of the meeting is provided below to benefit those who were unable to attend, and as a timely reminder of the key topics for those who did.

Day one of the meeting was opened by Chris Winchester (Chair of the ISMPP Board of Trustees and Oxford PharmaGenesis), before a keynote address considering the changing medical affairs landscape in the face of increasing patient engagement and a ‘data tsunami’. Later sessions looked into how blockchain technology could transform medical publishing, before some pertinent updates in ‘news you can use’. Finally, parallel sessions covered the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on publications and innovations in extending the reach of posters.

The summary of day two of this meeting can be found here. The summary of day three of this meeting can be found here.

Medical affairs 3.0 – back to the future?

The keynote address was given by Gary Lyons (Fishawack), considering how increasing patient knowledge and involvement is changing the face of healthcare and impacting the pharmaceutical industry. Technology and the resulting abundance of patient data is rapidly driving a 2.0 to 3.0 shift from the current patient-centric healthcare paradigm to a collaborative, wellness-focused approach. Our thirst for connected knowledge means that around 69% of adults in the US now track at least one health metric every day and are increasingly willing to share their data: a data and insight tsunami is heading our way. Opportunities for self-tracking mean that individuals can take a more proactive approach to managing their health, with activity trackers, smart watches, smart clothing and smart implants, patches and ingestibles representing key technology impacting healthcare in 2019. This abundance of data could be combined with AI and machine learning to create ‘digital twins’ in the future, helping to provide health guidance tailored to individuals.

Alongside the popularity of self-tracking, we are seeing an explosion in health tracking start-ups and investments. The race is on between pharmaceutical companies (the ‘incumbents’) and major tech companies (the ‘disrupters’) to embrace HealthTech. Lyons highlighted two recent cases of disruption:

• The Apple Heart Study: Apple and Stanford Medicine collaborated to monitor the heart rhythms of 419,297 individuals in the US using the Apple Watch and an iPhone app. Participants notified of irregular heart rhythms were prompted to contact a study doctor and could be sent an electrocardiogram (ECG) patch to confirm the atrial fibrillation findings. In data presented at ACC 2019, the positive predictive value for receiving a notification from the app was 84%.
• Tech firms are increasingly focusing on healthcare systems: in the last year, several partnerships have been struck to direct technology towards improving healthcare systems and patient experiences. Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway and JPMorgan Chase have established Haven, aiming to leverage data and technology to improve patient experiences and healthcare systems; Microsoft and Walgreens Boots Alliance have partnered to develop retail innovations and improved healthcare delivery models; and Apple have launched AC Wellness, aiming to integrate technology to deliver exceptional employee healthcare.

Healthcare professionals (HCPs), pharmaceutical companies and the medical communications field need to be mindful of the future impact of technology. In the UK, the Topol review was recently published, recommending how the National Health Service can take advantage of innovative technologies – and how these will affect current clinical staff. In pharmaceutical companies, the future will see medical affairs focusing more on bringing patients and HCPs together and developing technology collaborations. Excitingly, technology will also have role in addressing current issues in publications: AI may help to reduce bias and the human resource burden of peer review, improving the speed of publication, while blockchain could enhance peer review transparency and promote interaction between authors, reviewers and the wider scientific community.

Innovation insights: the transformative power of blockchain

The second session of the day, moderated by Gary Burd (Caudex), delved deeper into the potential of blockchain to solve current challenges in medical publishing.

Joris van Rossum (Digital Science) highlighted that how the key concepts of blockchain might relate to medical publishing:

• Blockchain brings us from an internet of information to an internet of value, establishing ownership of information and enabling cryptocurrencies – some companies are looking to develop a cryptocurrency for science, which could provide credit for peer review or data sharing, for example, and could then be spent elsewhere
• Blockchain creates immutable timestamps, establishing provenance and therefore intellectual property rights for novel content, ideas and data – this might encourage data sharing
• Blockchain can provide distributed, decentralised and transparent but pseudonymous data storage, meaning that blockchain can be used without the need for a third-party company or database – this could enable advanced research metrics and allow access for validation, transparency and reproducibility

Blockchain could also be used to create a neutral infrastructure supporting blind and promoting open peer review processes across the industry. This would facilitate finding suitable, available reviewers, enable reviewers to receive recognition, allow management of the openness of peer review, and improve the insight that funders and institutions have into review activities.

Sean Manion (Science Distributed and Blockchain in Healthcare Global IEEE/ISTO) then spoke about the implementation of blockchain in healthcare. Currently, 42% of blockchain investment is in the finance industry, compared to only 2% in healthcare. The US Department of Health and Human Services has just implemented a blockchain-based procurement system, with real time data sharing enabling faster strategic purchasing. However, alongside use in administrative or financial capacities within the healthcare industry, many potential applications of blockchain are being investigated: verifying provider identities, medical devices, the pharma supply chain, clinical trials, publishing, clinical support tools and electronic health records. However, many of these are pilot projects and might not be implemented for a decade. Blockchain in Healthcare Global IEEE/ISTO has identified 16 categories of barriers to adopting blockchain technology, including access, ethics, scalability, cybersecurity and education, which will require multi-stakeholder collaboration to resolve. Manion finished by directing us toward further information, including a library of resources created by the HIMSS Blockchain Task Force. He also highlighted that a special issue of Frontiers, Blockchain for Distributed Research, will be published in autumn 2019.

News you can use

Up next were three fast-paced presentations on noteworthy topics in medical publishing.

First off, Caroline Halford (Adis, Springer Healthcare and Springer Nature) spoke about ‘Can reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) be improved?’. Caroline highlighted that researchers and journals are consistently under fire for inadequate reporting of RCTs and there is pressure to improve reporting standards. One analysis of RCTs published in 2016–17 found that the policy of some journals, requiring submission of a CONSORT checklist, may not have been very effective: inconsistencies between checklists and manuscripts are rife. Now, an RCT is underway, investigating whether providing feedback on how consistent CONSORT checklists and manuscripts are, alongside the standard peer review process, improves the overall completeness of RCT reporting.

Secondly, Amy Foreman-Wykert (Amgen) gave us a preview of what’s changed in the upcoming 11th edition of the AMA Manual of Style, due to be published in December 2019. Key changes include:

The final news snippet was delivered by Brian Falcone (Oxford PharmaGenesis), discussing the Pharmaceutical Information Exchange (PIE) Act. Historically, healthcare manufacturers have been reluctant to share clinical and economic information with payers prior to FDA approval, due to unclear regulatory guidance surrounding these communications. This delayed access to information in turn delays patient access to medications. As the US healthcare system becomes more value-focused, payers have shown increasing interest in receiving the information sooner, ideally 12–18 months prior to approval. The PIE Act, which would clarify the scope of permitted communication, was introduced as a bill in Congress in 2017, but has not yet been approved. Falcone emphasised that if it were, it could have a considerable impact on publication professionals: publication plans might be restructured to prioritise health economic publications, literature support for communication with payers might be requested, and outcomes-related measures might be introduced earlier in clinical research.

Parallel sessions

Attendees then broke off into parallel sessions, covering various topics, including current roles of AI in publications and extending the reach of posters with ‘publication extenders’.

How can AI be utilised in publications?

This session, moderated by Todd Parker (MedThink SciCom), examined how AI can be implemented in the pharmaceutical company context.

Ken Truman (MedThink SciCom) kicked off the session, looking at the current applications of AI. The availability of additional computational power and big data sets, and progress in machine learning, is rapidly enabling AI. AI encompasses machine learning, algorithms that learn from and make inferences based on data, and natural language processing (NLP; machine-based processing that allows for human-like interpretation of text). At the intersection of machine learning and NLP is natural language generation (NLG), generating natural language from data. A couple examples of AI use in healthcare were provided. Firstly, machine learning is being applied to detecting breast cancer metastases in tissue samples. Secondly, in publications, algorithms can simulate which aspects of a publication attract most reader attention and these predictive analytics can then be used to create effective poster designs.

Next, Dheepa Chari (Pfizer) discussed the operational applications for AI in the setting of a pharmaceutical company. Chari outlined a four-step operational approach for the selection of AI initiatives: ask a relevant question, acquire data needed to respond, analyse to find the solution, and act on key learnings. Opportunities for AI initiatives to solve business problems can fall under one of three categories:

• Insights: detecting key patterns and relationships from data in real time to derive deep, actionable insights, e.g. gap analyses and systematic literature reviews
• Engagement: using mass personalisation to improve customer, patient and employee engagement, e.g. digital assistants to answer scientific and clinical questions, bots to coordinate logistics of HCP interactions
• Automation: automating repetitive, knowledge- and natural language-rich human-intensive decision-making processes, e.g. detecting adverse event reporting in medical information requests, document review for medical/legal/regulatory purposes

Chari noted that in implementing AI, you should consider the availability of data and support for the project, identify the value that the initiative will bring, and ensure that expectations are aligned with the current possibilities of technology.

Jenny Ghith (Pfizer) rounded off the session by discussing the impact of AI in publications. Currently, an overload of information exceeds human capacity. AI might be able to help with time-consuming publication gap analyses, particularly in terms of identifying and selecting relevant articles. Extracting meaning from publications still needs human input, for the time being, due to the risk of false positives (AI including articles that are not relevant) and false negatives (AI removing articles that are relevant). However, the potential for AI in future time- and cost-savings in gap analyses and other resource-intensive, repetitive or mundane tasks, is huge. Existing AI technology is already being investigated in the industry and leveraging AI can significantly increase efficiency if utilised in current practices. However, we must evaluate AI through the lens of business needs and be mindful of its strengths and limitations.

At the end of the session, attendees were directed towards further resources including a Nature Toolbox article on future interactions between AI and scientific literature, and an online course from MIT: Artificial Intelligence: implications for business strategy. The session was summarised by emphasising the potential that AI has to rapidly provide answers to medical questions, ensuring that publication and strategic planning is more accurate. AI will require significant investment in software and will take time to get right, but when it does, the impact will be considerable.

Case study: extending the reach of your poster with digital publication extenders

In this session, Heather Abourjaily and Alia Bucciarelli (both from Biogen) discussed how moving from the traditional approach to posters to a more digital approach aligned with how HCPs want to receive information. According to a survey of neurologists, HCPs want to receive accurate, regular, prompt, up-to-date, non-promotional, unbiased information and materials. This is not new. However, how they want to receive information is changing. By 2020, two-thirds of HCPs will be digital natives (they qualified during or after the internet went mainstream, and have relied on digital interactions throughout their professional career). In a study by EPG Health, 81% of HCPs surveyed would prefer access to congress materials year-round, not just during the event, and want continued discussions beyond the congress setting. This shift requires a different, digital approach to communicating scientific information.

‘Publication extenders’ are helping the traditional poster to evolve to better share data. Biogen have developed a range of ways for HCPs to interact with posters: QR codes on posters link to a ‘microsite’ that contains the poster PDF, a mobile poster, poster slides and an author video. The microsite is optimised for viewing across mobile, tablet or desktop devices, and is available indefinitely. Author videos are short, 2–3 minute videos, which may be developed with the aid of free teleprompter apps.

Developing publication extenders presents challenges, including the short timeframe between finalising a poster and the congress, particularly considering that all materials require review and approval (including by all authors), meaning that perhaps efforts should be restricted to key posters. However, they can significantly increase the reach of a poster. For example, during Biogen’s last congress and the following week, users accessed high-priority microsites about 1200 times. This introduction of microsites and author videos increased the reach and lifespan of the data: for some posters, viewing time doubled following the congress. However, future opportunities include exploring Google analytics and introducing additional functionality to better meet HCP needs.

The summary of day two of this meeting can be found here. The summary of day three of this meeting can be found here.

——————————————————–

Summary by Ryan Woodrow BSc, CMPP from Aspire Scientific

——————————————————–

With thanks to our sponsors, Aspire Scientific Ltd and NetworkPharma Ltd

The 14th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) took place over three days (30 April–2 May) in National Harbor, MD, USA, and attracted a record-breaking number of visitors — over 600 attendees.

The theme of this year’s meeting, ‘From Publication to Practice: Advancing Science Through Effective Communication’, focused on the evolving role of the publication professional, the importance of effective communication, and emerging trends within the medical publications industry. These topics were explored through keynote addresses, lively panel discussions, and interactive roundtables. As in previous years, members were also given the opportunity to share their own research via oral and poster sessions. The meeting was attended by both highly experienced professionals and relative newcomers to the industry. The meeting also saw Chris Winchester (Oxford PharmaGenesis) begin his post as the new Chair of ISMPP Board of Trustees.

A summary of the second half of the meeting (Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday) is provided below for those who could not attend, and as a timely reminder of the highlights for those who did. Many of the presented slides and posters are available to ISMPP members here. A summary of the first half of the meeting can be found here.

Is pharmaceutical industry research posted as preprints?

Tuesday afternoon started with the member oral presentations, the first of which was delivered by Heather Lang (Oxford PharmaGenesis) and described her team’s research on preprints. Preprints have been the subject of much debate within the medical field in recent years and were a key topic at the meeting. Lang’s research addressed the following questions:

• Is the pharmaceutical industry posting research as preprints and, if so, what kind of research is being posted?
• Are comments on the research being posted and do authors respond to such comments?
• Have preprints been fully published and in what timeframe?

Findings showed that:

• Only around 1% of preprints on bioRxiv (an online platform for the distribution of preprints in life sciences), reported industry-authored research. Most of this was basic science; bioinformatics, genomics and genetics were the most common.
• Two-thirds of preprints were not revised on the system once posted.
• Two-thirds of the preprints from pharmaceutical companies (posted up until the end of 2016) had been published in full.

Lang acknowledged that the pharmaceutical industry could share work more rapidly using preprints than with traditional peer-reviewed publications, but stressed that education around preprints is needed. She concluded by suggesting that the industry evaluates the appropriateness of preprints for different types of research, runs pilots to explore preprint services, and develops and shares policies regarding the appropriate use of preprints.

Attention analysis simulation of scientific posters aligns authors’ intent with viewers’ focus

The second member oral presentation was given by Steve Palmisano (MedThink SciCom). This team’s research involved the use of machine learning algorithms to simulate audience visual attention via eye-tracking movements. The approach was used to evaluate the effectiveness of 16 scientific posters from a recent ISMPP annual meeting. Results showed that headlines should be kept short, especially when used on a coloured background. Graphic elements that lead the eye worked well, as did clear figures free from unnecessary elements. Use of callout boxes and displaying key results within figures were also found to be effective.

Examples of less effective posters included those that resulted in very long eye movements between areas of focus, those which drew the reader’s attention to the wrong area, and those which featured callout boxes with too much copy. Palmisano advised placing QR/VR codes strategically, when used, within the headline or conclusions box for example.

Palmisano summarised that an effective poster should draw the reader’s attention to the most important elements, enable an efficient scan path pattern that is appropriate for learning, and be visually attractive.

Publishers panel: simplifying and streamlining – working together to improve the quality of medical publications

The focus of this session, featuring representatives from major publishers, was practical advice and insights into improvements in the publishing process. Terry Materese (Elsevier) moderated the session and was joined by Chris Baumle (Elsevier), Jan Seal-Roberts (Adis, Springer Healthcare Ltd) and Caroline Halford (Adis, Springer Healthcare Ltd).

The key discussion points and take-away messages are summarised below; many of the themes that emerged aligned with focus topics for this year’s meeting.

Authorship and peer review

• Author transparency and acknowledgement of author contributions is critical; the use of systems such as CRediT should be encouraged – as discussed during Monica Bradford’s talk earlier in the day).
• A blockchain initiative is currently being trialled by Springer Nature to support the peer review process. The aim of the initiative is to create a platform where all review activity is deposited in a blockchain owned by the initiative (currently Springer Nature, Digital Science, and ORCiD), with the advantage that every deposit will be verifiable and auditable, thereby increasing transparency and reducing risk of manipulation.
• Elsevier has developed a Reviewer Recognition programme whereby peer review is a measurable research output for which credit is given. Both Springer Nature and Adis journals reward reviewers by waiving the article processing charge if they submit articles to one of their journals.

Preprints and data sharing

• A number of preprint services are now available, including bioRxiv (covered in the keynote presentation earlier in the day). Elsevier supports preprints and allows authors to share their preprints at any time on arXiv or RePEc. Other publishers, including Springer Nature, are also starting to take this approach. With the increased popularity of preprint services it will be important to update anti-plagiarism software such as iThenticate, so that preprints are not classified as plagiarism.
• Elsevier and Springer Nature have data sharing policies in place regarding the deposit of research data in relevant repositories and the subsequent citation/linking of the dataset in the article. Data in Brief (Elsevier) provides researchers with an avenue through which they can share and reuse datasets by publishing data articles.

Other themes

• Elsevier offer an Article Transfer Service whereby, if an article is deemed unsuitable for publication in a chosen journal, the editor may suggest submission to an alternative journal. The transfer can happen in minutes, negates the need for reformatting, and reduces reviewer time/burden as previous reviewer comments are pulled through. Springer Nature offers a similar process (Transfer Desk).
• The use of social media is encouraged by Elsevier and Springer Nature; both publishing houses provide guidance for authors and editors.
• Readership can be boosted by article enrichments including plain language summaries, audio slides, graphical abstracts, video abstracts and video articles.

The presentation concluded with a busy question and answer session in which the panellists informed delegates that video articles/abstracts do not have to be ‘polished’, article enrichment items adopt the same copyright as the main article, preprints remain available indefinitely, and that articles with digital features are downloaded more often than those without.

Successful integration of enhanced digital technology into scientific congresses

There are an increasing number of options available for enhancing the content of congress posters and presentations. In this session, John (Zeke) Czekanski (Fishawack US), Kimberly Della Penna (Merck) and Travis Hicks (American Society of Oncology [ASCO]) described the digital tools currently being utilised at meetings, future trends, and the pros and cons of these options in practice.

Czekanski began by providing a snapshot of current experience with digital tools and formats, based on a survey of ISMPP members and client service teams. Results revealed that most respondents had utilised various types of enhanced technology, including digital posters, virtual/augmented reality, meeting apps and QR codes. Although most considered these digital offerings to be beneficial to the end user, their value was not typically measured, suggesting that there was scope to better understand the benefits of these formats.

Della Penna summarised available technologies that offer improvements on traditional presentation types. These include the use of QR codes in oral presentations or posters, which link the user to the presentation slides, e-poster, or additional content. Unlike paper posters, e-posters can easily be made available after presentation at a congress. Videos, animation or audio commentary can be embedded within e-posters to provide greater understanding of the work, but can be expensive to develop and require advanced planning.

Hicks described ASCO’s approach to digital meeting tools. At the 2017 annual meeting, almost 3,500 e-posters and videos were accessible via the ASCO Meeting Library at digital kiosks during the congress and online afterwards. Despite the flexibility and portability offered by digitally presented content, ASCO continues to offer physical versions of posters as many attendees prefer this approach. Hicks concluded that the decision on how to consume congress material should be left to the attendee and that no single approach should be forced as it would be met with resistance.

Following this presentation, delegates had the opportunity to attend one of three parallel sessions, two of which are summarised below. The third session provided an overview of the ISMPP Certified Medical Publication Professional (CMPP) programme; more details of which can be found here.

Incorporating value into planning for early development compounds: the impact of market access trends

Emerging trends in market access and the implications for publication planners was the topic of this comprehensive presentation by Shana Traina (Janssen) and Kimberly Dittmar (Cello Health Communications). Coined the fourth ‘hurdle’ in drug development (after safety, efficacy and quality), market access is driven by many factors, as well as by payer questions regarding the value and budget impact of a drug. These include: therapeutic effectiveness, quality of evidence, perceived medical need, medical appropriateness, cost effectiveness, potential for underuse of overuse, and political expediency.

The value and budget impact of a therapy are usually assessed by governments using health technology assessments. When there are insufficient data to support value, access to a drug can be severely restricted based on clinical (eg limited to patient subgroups) and economic (eg managed entry agreement) considerations. The presentation continued with a review of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research ’s top 10 trends in health economics and outcomes research (HEOR) and their potential impact on market access.

In the next part of the session, a case study illustrated how market access considerations (eg disease burden, clinical management, payer perspectives) can influence the scientific platform and publication plan. The example highlighted the benefits of incorporating value measures, market access factors, and HEOR data generation and dissemination plans early in the clinical development programme. The presentation concluded with a call to action — to engage HEOR stakeholders early in the drug development and publication planning processes.

Permission granted? The ins and outs of global copyrights

In this session, moderated by Sharon Suntag (IQVIA), Liz Bilodeau and Stephen Garfield (both from Copyright Clearance Center [CCC]) delved into the complex topic of copyright laws and permissions, and how the principles differ globally.

Bilodeau introduced the CCC, the basic principles of copyright, and walked delegates through Code § 106 – Exclusive rights in copyrighted works — the US guidance that covers copyright related to reproduction, distribution, derivative works and other aspects of reusing content. There are no defined international copyright laws; laws vary from country to country, and permission to use copyrighted work often excludes reuse in other countries and languages.

Exploring the complexities of global copyright in more detail, Garfield outlined how intellectual property and content sharing are guided by various policies and laws:

• treaties and agreements: eg BERNE, other treaties administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization, and TRIPS
• national laws: the two broad approaches are termed ‘continental’ in which personal rights reside with the author and are not transferred, and ‘Anglo American’ in which an economic approach to copyright and set arrangements between society and content creators is adopted
• licenses: various models exist in different countries, including statutory licenses (eg as in Germany), blanket mandates (UK, Canada), and voluntary licenses (US). Collective licensing models also exist; in these models reproductive rights organisations, such as the CCC, license the use of content from many rights holders, collect royalties, and distribute them to the rights holders
• individual company policies.

Garfield continued by discussing considerations related to open access, creative commons licenses, and the importance of obtaining permission to reuse or repurpose content. Key takeaways from the presentations are for organisations to appoint a copyright expert, create/update and communicate copyright policies, and provide effective licensing solutions for employees. Additional resources around copyright and permissions are also accessible on the CCC website.

Following the parallel sessions, delegates could attend one of 10 roundtable discussions, which afforded the opportunity to have an in-depth conversation on their chosen topic in a smaller group setting. Day 2 concluded with the annual evening networking session.

Increasing speed, efficiency and transparency in medical publishing through open access

Day 3 of the meeting began with opening remarks by Chris Winchester (Oxford PharmaGenesis and new Chair of ISMPP Board of Trustees).

The proportion of articles published open access is increasing. In this panel discussion, Valerie Philippon (Shire), David Sampson (ASCO), Maria Alu (Columbia University Medical Center) and Moderator, LaVerne Mooney (Pfizer) shared their experiences with open access from a pharma and non-pharma perspective.

Mooney began by giving an overview of open access, the current options available and the advantages it can bring; including speed of dissemination, accessibility to research and increased transparency. A poll revealed that most of the audience considered that an article being free to read was enough to qualify it as open access, whereas others considered the ability to re-use the article either non-commercially or without restrictions was important; most considered an article processing fee of less than $3000 a reasonable price for publishing open access. While governmental and charitable research funders increasingly mandate open access publishing, it is pharma that funds over half of all medical research.

To date, Shire is the only pharmaceutical company that has introduced a mandatory open access policy. Philippon discussed the impact of this policy, which was introduced in January this year, and has seen an increase from 75% to 100% of articles reporting Shire-funded research being published open access. This has resulted in an increase in expenditure on publications, but this was considered reasonable compared with other methods of disseminating clinical data (eg cost of travelling to and presenting at conferences).

Alu described her experience at Columbia University which, having implemented its open access policy in 2011, has led the way by mandating all faculty members make their research articles freely available. Alu described some of the real and perceived barriers to open access that she has encountered, such as the perception that fully open access journals are lower tier than society-led journals, which are often the first point of call for many authors.

During questions from the audience, Sampson was asked why the Journal of Clinical Oncology (J Clin Oncol; Official Journal of ASCO) did not offer open access for industry-funded research. Sampson stated that this was in part due to concerns over the re-use of content for commercial purposes. He continued to say that J Clin Oncol may in future offer open access with non-commercial use options for these articles and the journal is currently reviewing its policy. In response to a comment about the low acceptance rate for J Clin Oncol, Sampson directed the audience to potential alternatives, including the new sister journals, JCO Precision Oncology and JCO Cancer Informatics.

Member oral presentation: patient lay summaries in biomedical journals: what and how much is currently available?

Ramji Narayanan (SIRO Clinpharm Pvt. Ltd) presented findings from his study that investigated the current usage of patient lay summaries, or plain language summaries (PLS), by biomedical journals. PLS are intended to communicate vital research using simplified language, without jargon or technical terminologies, aimed towards a non-expert audience.

The study found that 44 biomedical journals currently publish PLS. These were often not mandatory and word count restrictions ranged from a single summary sentence up to 700 words; the most common was 250 words. Guidelines for writing PLS were often not given and in some cases the journal’s editorial team provided the PLS. Analysis of readability using online tests revealed that many summaries were pitched at too high a level, suggesting more patient-friendly language was still needed. Six of the journals that published PLS encouraged authors to involve patients in the writing or reviewing of the summaries, while one journal mandated patient involvement.

Narayanan concluded that there was a need to streamline PLS reporting practices among journals and maintain a consistent style and reading level. He suggested the Plain Language Expectations for Authors of Cochrane Summaries could be adapted for this purpose.

Following the oral presentation, delegates could attend one of three parallel sessions or a guided poster tour; the parallel sessions are summarised below.

“Mind the gap”— life cycle management and HEOR integration

Kristen Quinn (Peloton Advantage) and Ilia Ferrusi (Novartis Oncology) discussed how gap analysis can be used throughout the life cycle of a product and the benefits of incorporating HEOR and real world evidence.

Quinn began by differentiating gap analysis, which evaluates deficiencies in specified topics, from other similar types of research such as situation or competitor analysis. Quinn gave examples of how gap analysis can be used to answer different questions throughout a product life cycle. For example, during early stages of clinical development a gap analysis may assess the unmet needs of existing management strategies, whereas closer to product launch, there may be specific questions pertaining to patient subgroups that can be answered. Quinn recommended that analyses are routinely repeated so that new and evolving data can be used to fill existing gaps and to identify new ones. Quinn emphasised the importance of fully understanding the research question to ensure the most appropriate analysis is carried out, using quality source data, and ensuring results and their implications are communicated effectively to the client/team.

Ferrusi described how traditionally HEOR might be carried during the latter stages of a product’s life cycle to determine, for example, its relative value as an intervention. Increasingly, however, HEOR is being incorporated earlier in product development to establish unmet needs from an economic perspective, such as the cost-effectiveness of existing therapies or the economic burden of disease management. Ferrusi discussed how integrating this type of evidence into gap analysis can inform HEOR strategy and evidence-generation plans and identify opportunities for differentiation. She concluded by summarising tools that are currently available to assess the quality of HEOR and real world evidence, with a reminder to utilise non-traditional or ‘grey literature,’ in addition to traditional publications.

Lay summaries for biomedical journals

Clinical trial lay summaries will soon become a legal requirement in the EU. Although the same is not true for lay summaries published in biomedical journals, their adoption should be encouraged. In this session Jan Seal-Roberts (Adis, Springer Healthcare Ltd) and Tom Rees (Oxford PharmaGenesis) provided practical guidance on the development of lay summaries and discussed potential trends from a publisher’s perspective.

Lay summaries for peer reviewed publications facilitate readability and understanding of a research article by non-expert readers such as patients, caregivers, tax-payers, non-specialist clinicians, and by ‘time-poor’ specialists. Many patients and caregivers are familiar with scientific publications but with abstracts becoming more difficult to read, there is a growing need for publication-specific lay summaries. After the main differences between publication lay summaries and clinical trial lay summaries were presented (eg rationale, scope, endpoints included, format/style and reading age), the presentation focused on the increasing uptake of publication lay summaries.

Several journals now accept or require lay summaries, including PLOS Medicine, PNAS and Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. Moreover, all Adis articles can be accompanied by a lay summary, which is peer reviewed. The British Journal of Dermatology now publishes a plain language summary for every accepted paper. Seal-Roberts and Rees emphasised the importance of lay summaries being made open access so that patients can find them. However, although this is the case for some journals, eg British Journal of Dermatology and those published by Adis, lay summaries are not always free accessible. It was noted that a number of non-journal opportunities for lay summaries also exist, including KUDOS, scienceOPEN, The Conversation, ATLAS of science and figshare.

Some best practice tips for developing a publication lay summary were recommended:

• focus on the significance of the research
• consider the use of infographics or visual abstracts
• use available tools to check the readability score
• consider using peers and lay readers to provide objective feedback.

Seal-Roberts and Rees concluded that publication lay summaries complement those mandated for clinical trials and have the potential to boost the impact of published research to a wider audience.

Posters of the future

In this highly engaging and interactive session facilitated by Eline Hanekamp, Niina Nuottamo, Hester van Lier and Shanthi Voorn (all from Excerpta Medica), delegates were split into groups and tasked with developing a poster. Delegates were informed that the poster must include the traditional Introduction, Methods, Results and Conclusions sections, but should be designed in a non-conventional style (eg be highly visual, interactive, employ infographics or augmented reality, have increased white space, or adopt the inverse pyramid approach to the flow of information).

After each group developed their poster all delegates reviewed all posters and discussed what made each poster effective. Examples of best practice included:

• minimal use of words
• increased focus on the results
• placing the results first or more prominently on the poster
• having a good balance of figures versus text
• having a highly visual conclusions section
• including a patient lay summary
• including QR codes linking to different versions of the poster tailored to specific audiences (eg clinicians, patients, payers).

The facilitators concluded that posters are an effective communication tool. They suggested that putting some of the discussed approaches into practice would lead to a highly engaging and impactful poster that stands out from the crowd.

News you can use

In this rapid-fire session, delegates heard updates on a number of hot topics in medical publishing, as summarised below.

Does pharma publish clinical trial data? What’s NCT number got to do with it – LaVerne Mooney (Pfizer)

Mooney reminded delegates that publications and press articles have, in the past, reported that <50% of studies do not get published, although recent analyses have shown these rates have improved. A factor that can hinder such analyses is matching a publication to its ClinicalTrials.gov record. Mooney recommended that the clinical trial registration number is included in the abstract of all submitted/published articles and, if it is not, authors should contact PubMed or the publisher to get abstracts updated/or corrected.

Right to Try bill – Juliana Clark (Amgen and Outgoing Chair of ISMPP Board of Trustees)

This US bill, which controversially allows terminally ill patients to receive investigational drugs not yet approved by the FDA, was passed by the House of Representatives on 21 March 2018. Commenting on the potential impact for medical publication professionals, Clark noted that trial recruitment may slow down, however, the bill could also result in additional relevant publications of case reports.

Patient engagement update: GRIPP2 guidelines (patients as manuscript reviewers) – Jan Seal-Roberts (Adis, Springer Healthcare Ltd)

Seal-Roberts provided an overview of GRIPP2 (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public); guidance that aims to improve the quality, transparency and consistency of patient and public involvement in health and social research. Research is ongoing to assess the extent of patient and public involvement in research and medical publications. For example, a 5-year randomised controlled trial that will assess whether the lay public can enhance the peer review of journal articles.

GAPP announcement – Jackie Marchington (Caudex)

As of 2 May 2018, and after 6 years of service, the Global Alliance of Publication Professionals (GAPP), is stepping down and handing back responsibility to professional bodies, including ISMPP and the American and European Medical Writers Associations (AMWA and EMWA). The GAPP website and email address will be maintained for another ~1 year. The full press release is here.

Keynote address: the truth about doctors

In the final keynote of the meeting, a thought-provoking presentation by Hilary Gentile (McCann Health) looked at the current perceptions and roles of doctors as healthcare providers. She began by summarising some of the recent trends in the healthcare space. For example, with ~80% of the world’s health data reportedly generated in the last 2 years, doctors have been overwhelmed by information. The increased volume and access to such information also means that patients are much better informed. Additionally, time and cost pressures within health services mean doctors spend very little time with patients (2.3 minutes per patient visit for community doctors in the US) and more time on paperwork.

Gentile reported results from the ‘Truth about Doctors’ study undertaken by McCann Health. This survey of nearly 2,000 physicians from 16 countries aimed to understand the views of doctors on the “expectations and reality” of their roles. There were some surprising findings! Thirty-four per cent of survey respondents thought they could have become doctors without any training, while 53% of 18–34 year olds believed that technology could eliminate the need for doctors in the future. Doctors reported that they entered the profession to make a difference, but many felt a great sense of frustration with the current practice of medicine. This discontent is not without consequences: 66% of doctors had trouble sleeping and 58% reported marital problems.

The study showed there is a disconnect between doctors’ expectations and the reality of doctoring – but what are the solutions? Some of the insights offered by Gentile included:

• embrace and better harness the wealth of available information
• humanise new technologies to advance the doctor–patient shared care paradigm
• focus on all healthcare professional roles, not just doctors, and create new multi-stakeholder pathways to care
• empower doctors to regain mastery in patient care.

Gentile concluded that, with 80% of doctors in the survey stating they’d take the same career pathway again, the good news is the profession is unlikely to become extinct! However, the role of doctors in the provision of healthcare will almost certainly change.

Closing the meeting, Al Weigel (ISMPP President & CEO) thanked the programme, abstract and global workshop committees for their contributions, and the meeting sponsors and exhibitors. He concluded by informing delegates that an ‘ISMPP University’ webinar of the meeting highlights will be held in June, and by reminding delegates of the upcoming ISMPP West (11–12 October 2018), ISMPP EU (22–23 January 2019) and Annual (15–17 April 2019) meetings.

——————————————————–

By Aspire Scientific, an independent medical writing agency led by experienced editorial team members, and supported by MSc and/or PhD-educated writers