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

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

A summary of Day 1 can be found here and our Day 2 summary is here.

Summaries of Day 3

Innovating through diverse therapeutic solutions: update on digital therapeutics

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Medical communications for DTx must teach, inform, and engage diverse stakeholders across regulatory, clinical, commercial, and technical domains.
• Evidence for DTx must go beyond RCTs to include real-world data, health economics, and patient voice to secure trust and reimbursement.

In this parallel session, Claudia Piano (ApotheCom), Frances Thorndike (Nox Health), and Mariya Petrova (Click Therapeutics) offered valuable perspectives and practical considerations for medical communications professionals working in the evolving field of digital therapeutics (DTx). Defined by the DTx Alliance as evidence-based software interventions designed to prevent, manage, or treat medical disorders, DTx are typically delivered through apps, wearables, or other digital platforms. While regulated as medical devices, they present distinct challenges due to continuous data tracking, iterative software development, and complex stakeholder expectations.

While regulated as medical devices, DTx present distinct challenges due to continuous data tracking, iterative software development, and complex stakeholder expectations.

Piano charted the development of the DTx sector from early funding in 2003 to today’s focus on AI-driven personalisation, sustainable business models, and real-world performance. She highlighted how DTx is increasingly embedded into broader care pathways, with implications for cross-functional communication and market access.

Thorndike presented a case study of an FDA-cleared DTx for chronic insomnia, illustrating the types of evidence needed, from clinical trial data to real-world outcomes and health economics. Her presentation emphasised the importance of post-market validation and the inclusion of the patient voice.

In the third part of the session, Petrova explored the publication challenges unique to Prescription Drug Use-Related Software (PDURS), such as compressed timelines, multidimensional audiences, and regulatory uncertainty. She stressed the importance of early strategic planning and adaptable publication approaches.

The session closed with a clear call to arms: despite growing interest, awareness and confidence among clinicians remain limited. Just 34% of surveyed healthcare professionals (HCPs) felt confident recommending Software as a Medical Device (SaMD), and only 32% for Prescription Digital Therapeutics. This gap presents a powerful opportunity for medical communications professionals to take the lead in educating, informing, and elevating the profile of DTx across the healthcare landscape.

The rhythm of innovation: crescendo and drumbeats in concert

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Small, well-executed ideas can create meaningful impact when teams plan, collaborate, and launch with purpose.

As the pace of scientific progress accelerates, medical communicators must find new ways to deliver ethical, effective, and patient-focused messages. Kristyn Morgan (Envision Pharma Group) chaired a session featuring Catherine Skobe (Pfizer), Kathryn Coles (Envision Pharma Group), and Gary Lyons (Coronado Research), which looked at how innovation can be defined, nurtured, and embedded across scientific communication roles—offering actionable insights for professionals seeking to drive change within their organisations.

Skobe opened by exploring the concept of innovation, emphasising its relevance beyond just technological solutions. She highlighted its role in combating misinformation, improving health equity, and strengthening patient outcomes. Drawing on the metaphor of kintsugi, she encouraged embracing imperfection and learning through iteration—framing innovation as both purposeful and creative.

Coles focused on cultivating environments where innovation can thrive. She outlined the importance of frameworks and systems that integrate continuous idea generation, strategic alignment, and collaboration. Innovation, she argued, should be embedded in culture—supported by trust, space to fail, and leadership buy-in.

Innovation needs structure and rhythm—so good ideas don’t stall, but gain momentum and drive meaningful change.

Lyons tackled the practical barriers to adoption. He highlighted the ‘Valley of Death’ where promising ideas often stall due to rigid structures, communication breakdowns, or lack of support. To overcome this, Lyons recommended treating new ideas as structured proposals: define the benefits, build cross-functional teams, and plan for phased implementation. He advocated for launch strategies that include visible leadership support and internal promotion to generate excitement and traction.

The session closed with the powerful message that innovation doesn’t have to be big to be impactful. Even small, well-supported initiatives—like the surgical safety checklist inspired by aviation protocols—can transform healthcare outcomes. For scientific communicators, the challenge and opportunity lie in thinking differently, acting boldly, and fostering a culture where new ideas can take flight.

The right venue: maximising impact across medical congresses and societies

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Effective congress engagement relies on early planning, format adaptability, vigilance against predatory events, and smart use of extenders to maximise reach and inclusivity.

Strategic congress planning: making every meeting matter

Selecting the right medical congress can significantly influence scientific communication, engagement, and long-term impact. During this panel discussion moderated by Susan Cuozzo (GSK), Wendi Schultz (Pfizer) and Melissa Goodman (American Urological Association) shared strategies for selecting venues, avoiding predatory events, and extending the life of congress presentations through global and digital approaches.

Choosing the right congress
Large congresses offer broad reach and visibility, while smaller ones enable deeper dialogue with authors and HCPs. Discussions underscored that planning should begin with a clear understanding of publication goals, timelines, and audience needs. Smaller congresses also offer critical access for HCPs unable to attend larger meetings.

Adapting content and format
Tailoring messages for specific congresses requires balancing scientific rigour with readability. Infographics, QR codes, and inclusive design enhance accessibility. Close alignment with authors and awareness of congress guidelines is key.

Spotting red flags in predatory congresses
Delegates should watch for unsolicited invites, vague event details, and too-frequent scheduling. A lack of transparency or an unusually narrow editorial board may signal concerns. “If it doesn’t feel right, do your research” the panel advised—asking peers and organisers can help confirm legitimacy.

Going global, staying local
Global-to-local strategies can boost inclusion and amplify diverse research, particularly among emerging markets. The American Urological Association’s Global Gateway programme (AUA2025 Annual Meeting) to highlight international research contributions, and diversity, equity and inclusion-driven abstract categories were cited as effective models. Engaging local authors and planning early supports successful facilitation of local meetings.

Extending congress content

PLS, podcasts, videos, and encore presentations can extend a congress’s impact well beyond the event.

Plain language summaries (PLS), podcasts, videos, and encore presentations can extend a congress’s impact well beyond the event. Subtitles increase accessibility, and QR codes ensure initial engagement—even before manuscript publication. When authors support these extenders, their advocacy strengthens dissemination.

Guided Poster Tour

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

• Insights from post-publication peer review to guide authors on transparency, engagement, and narrative control – Pamela Harvey
• Clinical guidelines: potential implications of not managing citations to retracted articles – Marissa Buttaro, Stephen Craig, Andy Shepherd

Evolution of AI prompts in medical publication development: practical considerations and guidance

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Thoughtful prompt engineering with iterative, multi-agent approaches is key to harnessing AI effectively in medical writing but human oversight remains essential.

In this illuminating session, presenters Vijay Krishnan (Pfizer), Michael Pellegrino (ICON Global Medical Communications) and Tony Lan (Merck) unpacked the science behind prompt engineering, which is crucial to unlock AI’s full potential in medical publications.

Engineered vs non-engineered

Lan explained how non-engineered (or “zero-shot”) prompts are straightforward queries with minimal structure and no refinement before use. Engineered prompts use examples, contextual cues, or even AI-generated scaffolds to produce more targeted outputs. Engineered prompts range from one-shot designs upwards, and their quality increases with prompt relevance, specificity, and volume of example material provided—though so does the effort. Users should be aware of their desired time commitment, since drafts using engineered prompts will still need substantial review and revision by subject matter experts.

Iterative agents: AI playing in harmony

Krishnan introduced the concept of using multiple AI agents to improve outputs. For example using AI in the roles of “writer” and “critic” in an iterative process to refine content. This back-and-forth dynamic mimics the editorial process and can help generate outputs closer to publication-ready material. These agents can be trained to remember tone, journal preferences, and terminology.

Future perspective

AI is evolving quickly and will eventually become commonplace; however the core principals of scientific publishing will remain unchanged.

AI is evolving quickly and will eventually become commonplace; however the core principals of scientific publishing will remain unchanged. Most companies will not currently be using AI in this capacity and medical writers have an important role in developing the “Writer” agent.

Keynote – Generative AI: how human expertise and authenticity matter more than ever

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Generative AI is a tool that everyone should be using, and we need to learn how to get the best out of it. Medical publication professionals can leverage the power of generative AI to enhance their productivity and become content domain experts.

Tech expertise is not needed

Conor Grennan (NYU Stern School of Business) started his presentation by disclosing that he is not a technical expert, and that his presentation would have little to do with technology. But Conor explained this shouldn’t be a barrier to successfully using AI. He gave an example of how AI interacts with us: in response to being told it had given an incorrect response to a question, the generative AI apologised and stated that it had performed some research, which Conor explained was a lie. This demonstrates to us how generative AI works – it provides answers in a similar way to humans, modelling its behaviour on what it observes.

Speak to AI like it’s human

Understanding that generative AI is mimicking human behaviour allows us to make a shift in the way we use it. Rather than interacting with AI like it’s Google, we should be asking it questions as if it were a person. Conor gave an example of trying to plan a holiday in Costa Rica. Google may provide you with a list of the top ten things to do, but won’t generate a personalised response based on your interests. Instead you can tell AI that it is the head of the tourism board in Costa Rica, and have it ask you questions to find the activities best suited to you.

The value of domain expertise and tone

Having expertise in an area gives us an advantage that generative AI can’t replicate. Our understanding allows us to lead AI in content generation knowing what quality looks like and what drives value for us. The most important thing in the AI era is domain expertise by a human individual. Although AI can generate content, it will never have specific knowledge; companies should therefore be careful not to lose people with this expertise. Conor recommended that we write first drafts of documents, to maintain personal tone and style; otherwise all content will start to look the same.

The most important thing in the AI era is domain expertise by a human individual.

Integrate AI into your working

Conor urged us not to spend time thinking about which tasks we should use AI for. Instead we should be using it automatically for everything. AI should be augmenting us, not the other way around.

Member research oral presentations

BlueSky vs X: can a new platform dethrone the HCP social media giant?

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Bluesky is emerging as a key platform for healthcare professional engagement, signalling a shift in professional medical communication strategies.

Leslie Rotz (Fingerpaint Medical) presented a study investigating whether Bluesky —an emerging social media platform—could challenge X (formerly Twitter) as the leading space for HCP engagement.

Analysing data from 472 HCP digital opinion leaders (DOLs) between 2019 and 2024, the study showed a clear trajectory: X experienced a rise in activity during the COVID-19 pandemic, followed by a notable decline after the platform’s change in ownership in 2022. Meanwhile, Bluesky has been steadily gaining ground, especially among infectious disease specialists, oncologists, and rheumatologists. The shift was evident during major medical congresses, where X’s hashtag activity dropped while Bluesky saw an increase in both hashtag creation and sharing of medically relevant content.

Bluesky has been steadily gaining ground, especially among infectious disease specialists, oncologists, and rheumatologists.

These patterns suggest a broader shift in how HCPs communicate online. As Rotz concluded, the growing presence of HCP DOLs and congress conversations on Bluesky suggests a strategic pivot is underway in medical social media, with important implications for how and where scientific dialogue takes place.

Collaboration with patient partners and data scientists to develop a lexicon for Artificial Intelligence-enhanced medical communication

KEY TAKEAWAY

• AI-assisted, patient co-created lexicons can enhance the clarity and accessibility of medical content for people living with rare diseases.

Anne Clare Wadsworth (Amica Scientific) presented the findings from a pilot study exploring how AI can improve PLS for people living with myasthenia gravis (MG).

The authors collaborated with 4 patient partners to co-create a lexicon of 118 terms, covering MG, treatments, and clinical trials. Using an AI application, the lexicon was applied to 19 MG-related PLS, resulting in 80 unique content improvement suggestions. A professional medical writer confirmed that 68% of these AI-recommended changes would have been adopted in practice. Patient partners also contributed 48 revisions to refine the lexicon.

Feedback from both patient partners and users of the AI tool was positive, despite limitations such as a small sample size and the early development stage of the AI app. Wadsworth concluded that combining AI technology with patient insights holds significant promise for accelerating the creation of accessible, patient-focused medical communications.

Combining AI technology with patient insights holds significant promise for accelerating the creation of accessible, patient-focused medical communications.

In harmony: a musical exploration of connection, collaboration and creativity

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Songwriting and medcomms writing both require storytelling, listening, and authenticity.
• Collaboration can take many forms, each enriching the creative process.

In an inspiring ISMPP session centred on the theme of creativity through music, attendees were treated to an unexpected but inspiring experience. Participants heard the personal and professional journey of singer-songwriter Dheepa Chari (GSK). Tracing her musical roots back to her grandmother in India, Chari shared how her passion for music evolved alongside a scientific academic path. She drew compelling parallels between songwriting and medical publications writing, highlighting the importance of storytelling, authenticity, and the power of listening.

Participants reflected on their own creative inspirations and were encouraged to prioritise simplicity and honesty in their communication.

Participants reflected on their own creative inspirations—ranging from nature and empathy to patients and AI—and were encouraged to prioritise simplicity and honesty in their communication. The session concluded with live performances by Chari and her producer and jazz musician Sandro Albert, each song illustrating a unique form of collaboration and offering fresh perspectives on the creative process.

Encore! Hot topics and meeting highlights

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• AI is prompting a re-evaluation of writing workflows and the need for thoughtful application in content creation and metrics.
• Traditional success measures are no longer enough—there’s a call for new, meaningful metrics that reflect real-world impact.

A lively ISMPP plenary session brought together programme chairs and leaders for a reflective discussion on the meeting’s standout moments. Richard Davis (ApotheCom) introduced the session with a Shakespearean-style prologue written by ChatGPT—complete with theatrical stage directions—setting the tone for a creative and thoughtful exchange.

Panellists shared personal insights, with recurring themes of collaboration, empathy, and innovation. Jennifer Ghith (GSK) highlighted the productive dialogue on collaboration with publishers and the need for simplification around copyright. Kris Schuler (Pfizer Oncology) observed that medical publications are at an inflection point, emphasising empathy, tone, and cross-sector collaboration to improve patient care.

Dana Fox (IPG Health Medical Communications) reflected on the interconnected focus areas of communication, collaboration, and innovation, noting ISMPP’s work to navigate regional disparities and promote equity. Valerie Moss (Prime Global) echoed the importance of empathy, especially in making patients feel seen and heard through writing.

Davis underscored ISMPP’s cross-functional collaboration, highlighting the work of the AI taskforce. A spirited discussion on the role of AI prompted Ghith to rethink using it for first drafts, while others considered AI’s potential for supporting better metrics. The panel agreed on the need to move beyond traditional metrics toward ones that better reflect engagement and real-world value.

The panel agreed on the need to move beyond traditional metrics toward ones that better reflect engagement and real-world value.

Board of Trustees ceremony and closing remarks and CMPP update

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• ISMPP reaffirmed its core values and commitment to respectful, engaged leadership.
• Attendees were encouraged to stay involved through events, podcasts, and MedComms Day.

Chair of the ISMPP Board of Trustees, Tomas Rees (Oxford PharmaGenesis), opened the ceremony by reflecting on the organisation’s 2024 achievements and the Board’s progress. The traditional plaque and gavel ceremony followed, marking the leadership transition to Chair Elect Diane Stothard (Eli Lilly and Company). Stothard shared her vision for 2025, centred on deeper engagement with AI, respectful collaboration, and a commitment to uphold ISMPP’s core values. Notably, she announced that AI competency will be incorporated into the CMPP exam.

Prizes were awarded for exhibitor-sponsored competitions, and closing remarks were delivered by Jennifer Ghith (GSK), who extended thanks to Kris Schuler (Pfizer Oncology), the ISMPP staff, boards, sponsors, and programme contributors.

Attendees were reminded that 25 June is MedComms Day and were encouraged to post using #MedCommsDay. Key upcoming meetings include the 2026 European Meeting, to be held 26–28 January in London, and the 2026 Annual Meeting, taking place 20–22 April in Washington, DC.

Why not also read our summaries of Day 1 and Day 2 of the meeting?

——————————————————–

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

——————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• A recent study found that millions of published works are not stored in a digital archive.
• This lack of archiving means articles are at risk of being lost from the scientific record.

In an evolving publishing landscape that faces challenges ranging from paper mills to AI-generated content, protecting the integrity of the scholarly record is perhaps more important than ever. But, as Sarah Wild describes in a recent Nature News article,  current inadequacies in digital preservation risk the loss of millions of scholarly articles.  

Wild reports on a study by Martin Paul Eve published in the Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication that examined almost 7.5 million publications to see if they were sufficiently archived. The publications all had digital object identifiers (DOIs), but only 58% had been preserved in a major digital archive. Twenty-eight percent of articles had not been preserved in an archive.

Twenty-eight percent of articles had not been preserved in an archive.

Eve acknowledged that the study had its limitations; for example, the authors only examined works with a DOI and did not check every available repository. Nonetheless, the analysis raises important issues. Firstly, articles stored in just one digital archive may be lost if the link were to stop working or the organisation shut down. Secondly, smaller publishers are at a greater risk of insufficiently preserving works compared with larger publishers, due to a lack of funds, expertise, or technology. Eve suggests implementing various measures to improve digital preservation, including tighter requirements from DOI registration agencies and education on the issue.

Wild highlights the need for greater awareness on the risks associated with poor digital preservation methods and calls for researchers to consider “long-term sustainability” in research archiving.

————————————————–

There is growing appreciation of the benefits of patient involvement during the drug development process, from clinical trials to data dissemination and post-marketing activities. Consequently, patient involvement is increasingly being advocated in industry and journal policies and guidelines. Following her participation at the 2023 International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) EU meeting, The Publication Plan spoke to Christine Vanderlinden, Senior Director, Head Global Publications at GSK, to gain her insights on patient engagement within medical communications. Christine also discussed the latest update to the Good Publication Practice guidelines (GPP 2022), on which she was a co-author, and provided her thoughts on data dissemination and the use of social media within the pharmaceutical industry.

At the 2023 European Meeting of ISMPP you took part in a panel discussion which covered patient authorship of industry-sponsored publications. In your experience, what are the key benefits and challenges when involving patients as authors?

“Key benefits are addressing the needs of patients in scientific/medical publications and making complex scientific/medical content more understandable and accessible to an audience from diverse backgrounds. We can certainly demonstrate that patients and industry can work together in an effective way, while ensuring all ethical measures are in place. Enabling patients to directly report in a scientific manuscript their own personal experience to the medical and scientific community also increases confidence that publications address topics that have a real-world relevance. Finally, we provide a clear example of inclusion.”

“Enabling patients to directly report in a scientific manuscript their own personal experience to the medical and scientific community also increases confidence that publications address topics that have a real-world relevance.”

“Key challenges include ensuring the appropriateness of engaging patients as authors. This is an important consideration for companies looking to develop policies for working with patient authors and should be approached with a broader view of patient engagement at study level. We should also be very careful not to create the perception of engaging patients as authors to convey specific product messaging and we should ensure patient authors are fully engaged during the entire process of the publication to guarantee authorship.”

Patients may contribute to many aspects of the publication process, including but not limited to contributing as an author. For example, they may review materials or help to design clinical studies. Could you describe your experiences of working with patients in these or other roles? What are your key learnings from such experiences?

“Patient engagement should not be considered in silo for one activity but should be looked at from a broader perspective ie, considering the patient engagement journey as an end-to end activity from study design to publications. Considerations for patient engagement can also differ between therapy areas and different approaches may be required for example in rare diseases, and for therapeutic treatments versus prophylactic treatments. Patients as reviewers either of a whole publication or of a plain language summary included in a publication bring rich insights and make the research more tangible and accessible from an end-use perspective.”

“Patients as reviewers either of a whole publication or of a plain language summary included in a publication bring rich insights.”

The guidance in GPP 2022 surrounding compensation of patient participants and patient advocates is clear and does not preclude offering compensation for involvement with publications activities. Is this sufficient and/or should there be more guidance to industry in this area?

“This area is still very new overall in the publication world and each company needs to conduct their own risk assessment and determine their approach towards this topic. As such, patient authors should not be considered differently from other authors and any compensation needs to be aligned with the overall approach of each company and follow transparency principles.”

“Patient authors should not be considered differently from other authors and any compensation needs to be aligned with the overall approach of each company.”

At the 2023 European Meeting of ISMPP, you also discussed the use of independent platforms such as Figshare and industry-owned platforms for disseminating research. Could you briefly share your thoughts on the pros and cons of each of these platforms for sharing content? Does GSK currently use either method?

“I believe that accessibility of publications and publication content is key. Some of these platforms can be an interesting way to increase that accessibility by increasing the entry points to a publication and therefore increasing its discoverability. The downside of this is that we need to ensure full transparency and decrease complexity by linking all of the outputs generated from each data set/piece of research.

GSK is not systematically using Figshare for all publications but is using the platform to post publications enhancements when journals do not provide the option of hosting such content. In those cases, a link to the Figshare post is included in the main publication. Some journals also use the platforms to post appendixes and additional materials to the main publication.”

Thinking more broadly about data dissemination, what are your key considerations when making publication decisions with regards to publishing open access or using enhanced features such as plain language summaries or graphical or video abstracts?

“Our main considerations are linked to making the research data more discoverable, accessible, and understandable by the key target audiences and also making it more accessible for broader audiences and use. On the content of the publications itself, we need to specifically focus on the language use, the style, the way to present the information, the importance of visuals and podcasts to be considerate of this broad usually non-scientific, non-medical audience.”

“We need to specifically focus on the language use, the style, the way to present the information, [and ] the importance of visuals and podcasts…”

Has the GPP 2022 update or your involvement in its development changed your approach to any publication-related processes? Which aspects of the guidelines do you think will have the most impact on daily working practices?

“The GPP 2022 update has not changed my approach to publications related processes overall. None of the principles of GPP3 have been modified in GPP 2022. GPP 2022 is mainly focussed on new emerging trends and provides guidance and insights on those topics. For instance, I believe that the recommendations on patient involvement will support companies to align on this topic and encourage them to further develop patient engagement in research and research data communication.”

Do you feel social media should have a greater role within the medical communications industry, and if so, in which areas? Do you feel the mention of social media in the GPP 2022 update will encourage its use or is further guidance needed?

“Social media is fully embedded in our societal habits, including in scientific and medical communities. So, the use of social medial platforms needs to be considered carefully. Social media is a sensitive topic as it is subject to local regulations and there is a thin line in perception between what is considered scientific communication and what constitutes promotional activity. Hence why I believe that social media policies should remain in the scope of the external communication departments of companies who have a broader view and in-depth understanding of regulations in this regard and of journals who disseminate publications in a neutral way. GPP 2022 is not encouraging the use of social media for publication dissemination but rather deferring to the approach of individual companies as part of the broader topic of use of social media in external communications.”

Are there any new topics or areas which you feel could be expanded further in future iterations of GPP?

“I believe that with the rapid evolution and expansion of artificial intelligence, this topic will need more attention in the next iteration of GPP to provide aligned guidance and standard approaches in this field.”

Christine Vanderlinden is Senior Director, Head Global Publications at GSK and can be contacted via LinkedIn

—————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Altmetrics offer valuable insights beyond numerical scores.
• Researchers can use them to discover suitable platforms to enhance research visibility, promote research sharing, connect with experts, and uncover opportunities for collaboration.

Altmetrics offer an alternative approach to evaluating research impact that extends beyond traditional citation-based metrics, such as journal impact factor and the h-index. A high Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) indicates that research is actively discussed and shared across diverse online platforms, such as news outlets, social media, or in policy documents. However, there is more to altmetrics than assessing impact alone.

In a recent post on the LSE Impact Blog, Andy Tattersall explores 5 ways researchers can leverage altmetrics to gain useful insights into the audiences for their research and find channels to extend the reach of their work.

1. Connect with the right audiences: Altmetrics can help identify blogs covering particular research topics to aid in the selection of suitable platforms for guest post contributions.
2. Incentive to take action: A low AAS can signal that a research output is receiving little online attention. Authors may use this as motivation to promote their work.
3. Encourage open access: Altmetrics provide a compelling reason to share research through open access repositories to increase the likelihood of media coverage and blog discussions.
4. Connect with experts: Altmetrics can be used to identify suitable expert speakers for academic events by gauging which potential speakers receive media or blog coverage for their research outputs.
5. Create opportunities for collaboration: Altmetric tools like Overton and BMJ Impact Analytics allow users to discover if and how their research is cited in policy documents and clinical guidelines, paving the way for collaborations with entities such as charities or governmental organisations.

Although altmetrics have been around for some time now, Tattersall believes that they may still hold untapped potential. Researchers are encouraged to capitalise on this potential to maximise the impact of their work and uncover new opportunities in today’s dynamic academic landscape.

Although altmetrics have been around for some time now,
Tattersall believes that they may still hold untapped potential.

————————————————

In today’s digital age there is an opportunity to present and share medical research in new and creative ways. However, traditional formats are often still our go-to methods. Following his participation at the 2023 International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) EU meeting, The Publication Plan spoke with James Dathan, Global Publications Manager at AstraZeneca, to learn why he feels it is time to challenge the status quo and how we should be striving to develop more innovative ways to communicate medical information.

With social media and various digital platforms, there are many formats available for sharing data and research. At the 2023 European Meeting of ISMPP you talked about using an omnichannel approach to communication. For anyone unfamiliar with the concept, could you explain what this means and how it differs from a multichannel approach?

“A quick Google search shows that omnichannel is referred to as ‘a neologism describing a business strategy’ while the business consulting firm Frost & Sullivan defines it as ‘seamless and effortless, high-quality customer experiences that occur within and between contact channels’. While this overview is helpful, it is trying to explain something that I do not think anyone really knows yet ─ omnichannel is a relatively new concept and what will become its defining characteristics are still evolving.”

Multichannel in my view refers to standard communication methods, such as journals, congresses, and the more traditional methods of dissemination. Omnichannel simply enhances those for the modern world where we all connect to phones, social media and e-mails whenever we want. To this end the opportunity to reach anyone, on any platform is omnipresent – we just need to pick the right platforms and the right processes. What we think of as omnichannel communication  and how we see its potential and direction may change tomorrow and certainly will in the future.”

“The opportunity to reach anyone, on any platform is omnipresent – we just need to pick the right platforms and the right processes.”

Specifically, within medical communications, what are the benefits and challenges to pharmaceutical companies adopting omnichannel strategies? Could you share any examples of this approach being utilised particularly effectively at AstraZeneca?

“Keeping pace with technological developments is a massive challenge. By the time we have identified an opportunity and started exploring, embracing, and actioning ideas, the world has moved on. So few opportunities exist for a sustained period during which we can try out new platforms (remember MySpace!). Other, more enduring areas which we can explore, such as Twitter, Facebook and TikTok are restricted by the PMCPA, our own compliance guidelines and concerns that posts may be interpreted as promotional rather than informative. Our job in publications is to bridge the gaps between the science, healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients, making information accessible, relatable, and useful for people living with illness and disease. To do this we need to challenge the status quo and overcome concerns about self-promotion. We need to work with agencies such as PMCPA and other pharmaceutical companies to share the breath-taking work being done by the scientific teams with patients, who simply want to know and understand the illnesses they are dealing with.”

At the European Meeting of ISMPP, you highlighted the need to challenge standard practices and used congress posters as an example of a format that has changed very little over time. What do you think are the main barriers to pharmaceutical companies using more innovative approaches to communication? Could you share any examples of projects that you have been involved with where new or creative ideas were used successfully?

“As with social media I think that compliance and our own caution with regards to compliance has a part to play. Moving away from familiarity takes courage and a sustained effort. I talked about Better Poster 2.0 being around for years already… where are the next evolutions, 3.0 etc? We have added features to posters such as plain language summaries (PLS) and QR codes but kept the existing format. A few years ago, when I was with an agency, I led an interactive poster project with our client and the main battle we faced was being able to present the poster differently. Of the three or four models we suggested, the safest and most familiar was selected. I didn’t even want to put this model forward as the whole point of the project was to move away from the standard format. As a result, the poster did not stand out, did not look new or innovative and the metrics were, at best, rubbish!

“To drive innovation, we need to get everyone on board from the outset, including the congresses.”

To drive innovation, we need to get everyone on board from the outset, including the congresses, as so often they insist on font size, content etc. Would a poster be so bad if it only included results and/or a conclusion with the other details sitting behind a QR code for transparency? – it may even drive more people to use the QR code!”

During the last couple of years, medical congresses had to take place virtually due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Do you feel the shift to virtual events encouraged innovation? Do you think the change in format resulted in any advantages that should continue to be incorporated at face-to-face events?

“QR codes as a way of putting content online were all the rage during COVID. However, the industry defaulted to what it so often does and decided that talking head videos would be the way forward. So, everyone did the same… Sometimes we need to ban the normal to force innovation. The pandemic forced people to finally embrace the idea of a 3-dimensional poster, where more content can sit behind it via a QR code. The idea of going further to create 4 dimensions where live discussions with the authors  take place behind the QR code can now be a real option going forward.

This could even lead to reducing the industry’s carbon footprint with fewer people travelling thousands of miles to present a poster for 15 minutes. We are in a real digital age, and we must embrace it. Yes, face-to-face interactions are crucial and have a place, but just because we can go back to face-to-face meetings, doesn’t mean that we must. It doesn’t mean that we must throw away a lot of the wider opportunities created during the pandemic and press a reset back to ‘how it’s always been’. Maybe posters should become more focused on critical and key content, with the author taking part in discussions from their  office, via a large, centrally placed QR code. Or maybe discussions could even occur via holograms through augmented reality.”

“We are in a real digital age, and we must embrace it. Yes, face-to-face interactions are crucial and have a place, but just because we can go back to face-to-face meetings, doesn’t mean that we must.”

Journals are increasingly offering additional digital features to go alongside traditional articles. How do these enhancements improve the reach and impact of research? How do you go about measuring the return on investment?

“We are currently looking at this as a team. We are redoing our metrics projects, developing what we use already from Altmetric data, and working alongside that team to develop a Share of Voice dashboard where we can access the qualitative data, aligned with our quantitative data to get a more balanced view of the impact being made by content. We encourage the industry to move away from defaulting to impact factor as the sole consideration in journal selection and push for  open access and digital support, which can make papers more accessible to a wider audience and provide a better understanding of what people are accessing and saying about our articles. This improved analysis can then drive journal selection (and subsequent review of the selection) going forward to better educate teams about the opportunities that exist outside of simply looking at impact factor.”

“We encourage the industry to move away from defaulting to impact factor as the sole consideration in journal selection.”

Patient inclusion in medical communications was another key topic at ISMPP EU. An omnichannel approach to data dissemination provides scope to reach patients via a variety of media and increase patient involvement. Have you found this to be the case? How important is this aspect of the omnichannel approach and what do you think are the key considerations when involving patients?  

“The whole point of omnichannel is to allow and encourage patients to be able to find information on both their illness and treatment options to inform and support them. That’s why we are all here, to support patients through difficult times. As I said above, omnichannel is an ever-evolving concept due to the pace of media and channel development. What we think of it today, how we see its potential and direction may change tomorrow and certainly will in the future. This point really brings together many of the questions above whereby evolution can only occur in this space if every stakeholder gets on board. One limiting area will derail it all and revert back to the tried, tested and safe standard.

We need social media guidance from the PMCPA to be available for some level of dissemination. If we created non-promotional language and informed people of everything that is available, it would become easier for patients to find research. Removing pay walls and accessibility to patients would make a huge impact too and this will only happen with companies working together to get the best outcomes for patients to be reassured, and understand the progress and options available to them.

Involving patients in the publications process is increasingly common and finally being recognised as valuable. Patient involvement allows for articles to have an empathetic and practical sense. Our language can all too often be very scientific, hard, and factual without the secondary consideration/realisation that patients will be reading our articles too, not just HCPs! Involving patients can provide a human centric approach to the writing resulting in more descriptive and informative wording and improved accuracy of language – often opening the article to more patients who will get what they came looking for from the article.”

PLS, which are recommended in the GPP 2022 update, are mandated by some pharmaceutical companies for some or all their company-sponsored research. What is the current policy on PLS at AstraZeneca? How do you think decisions should be made regarding the inclusion of PLS to maximise their benefit whilst avoiding cherry picking research?

“The simple solution is to mandate that all publications need a PLS. This is something that I think will come but needs to be done in line with PMCPA considerations regarding social media, otherwise we are once again creating a bottleneck of content without a proper and full distribution system available.

PLS are improving and becoming  much more regulated and relevant as the social media world wants bitesized, simple content to understand. Even posters are now ‘too much’ to digest for people; instead they want to access information that has been summarised in a PLS. I go back to point raised above: so much more information could sit behind a poster with QR codes or other digital mechanisms with a concise text summary of the conclusion, a PLS and some simple graphics on the poster.

We are developing PLS options with internal artificial intelligence (AI) tools at present. We have made some fantastic progress on this with posters and are keen to extend the potential to manuscripts and even develop full plain language summaries of publications (PLSPs) in the future using this potential technology. More to come!”

Looking to the future, what developments would you like to see within medical communications? Are there any areas where you feel innovations or more creative approaches may lead to significant changes to standard practices?

“We can be a creative sector of the industry. We want to be creative and be pushed harder to innovate and create. Some of the issues right now are simply that the constraints around what is seen to be ‘promotional’ are so tight that it makes it incredibly hard to be creative! There are always new ways of doing things and as an industry that is constantly innovating and pushing boundaries within science, we seem very slow to be open-minded enough to challenge the status quo within the communications space. There is so much we could do, that does not need to be promotional, but can be informative, reassuring, and supportive for patients – we just need to work collaboratively to remove obstacles and find a mutually agreeable pathway to allow more and better innovation in the publications space.”

“We can be a creative sector of the industry. We want to be creative and be pushed harder to innovate and create…..There is so much we could do, that does not need to be promotional, but can be informative, reassuring, and supportive for patients.”

James Dathan is Global Publications Manager at AstraZeneca and can be contacted via james.dathan@astrazeneca.com or LinkedIn. James Dathan is an employee of AstraZeneca. This article reflects his opinions and not necessarily those of AstraZeneca.

—————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Integration of presubmission peer review processes and preprints into journal systems could improve the efficiency of conventional peer review.

While peer review is an essential part of the manuscript publication process, it can put a burden on the research community and delay dissemination of research findings. In a recent expert opinion article, published in Trends in Scholarly Publishing, Drs Sam Mathew and Habeeb Ibrahim Abdul Razack discuss how to harness the potential of informal presubmission review to expedite the conventional peer review process.

Presubmission reviews offer authors feedback on their manuscripts, independent of journals. They can be completed by subject matter experts at commercial writing agencies, with the review usually guided by a defined checklist based on conventional journal peer review forms. According to Drs Mathew and Razack, professional presubmission peer review tends to improve manuscript quality by identifying flaws in the research and providing suggestions on how to resolve them, ultimately improving the manuscript’s chances of publication. To avoid transparency issues, the authors recommend that the name of the agency, reviewer’s identity, review comments and how they have been addressed (eg a tracked revised version of the manuscript) should be proactively disclosed upon manuscript submission to a journal. The authors suggest that, depending on how thorough the process was, journal editors might be able to send the manuscript for ‘partial peer review’, focusing on areas not adequately covered by the presubmission review.

Preprint reviews are a type of presubmission review that could also be utilised in the peer review process. Drs Mathew and Razack propose the following preprint–journal system process:

• A journal deposits a manuscript awaiting assignment of suitable journal reviewers in an independent preprint repository.
• Readers provide feedback on the preprint and authors revise the manuscript accordingly.
• The journal monitors readers’ comments and authors’ amends and decides whether the revised manuscript can be published directly or should still undergo formal peer review.
• Authors can transfer rejected manuscripts, or those not published within a prespecified timeline, to another journal.

The authors believe that integrating professional presubmission review and preprints into the journal peer review process would enable faster manuscript publication and reduce the burden on scholarly peer reviewers.

The article concludes with a call for editors’ and writers’ associations to issue consensus statements on the proposals.

—————————————————–

Recorded 24 November 2021 as a MedComms Networking webinar. Produced by NetworkPharma.tv

——————————————————–

Recorded 22 September 2021 as a MedComms Networking webinar. Produced by NetworkPharma.tv

——————————————————–

Health misinformation is not a new concept but has received much attention in the last year due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Discerning fact from fiction has been complicated by an abundance of conspiracy theories, rumours, and sensationalist reports. The seriousness of the consequences of COVID-19 misinformation cannot be overestimated: acting on unsound advice could be life-threatening for an individual, while vaccine hesitancy could delay control of the pandemic on an international scale. Following his keynote speech at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) earlier this year, The Publication Plan spoke to Brian Southwell, Senior Director of RTI International’s Science in the Public Sphere programme, to find out what can be done to prevent misinformation and how public trust in science can be improved.

Please could you describe RTI International’s Science in the Public Sphere programme?  

“The Science in the Public Sphere program uses social science to investigate public understanding of science, health, and wellbeing and to support projects intended to help people navigate their information environments. The program is part of the Center for Communication Science at RTI International, an independent, nonprofit research institute dedicated to improving the human condition.”

Several retractions of COVID-19 related publications have been made by high profile journals, which may reduce the public’s trust in science. In your experience what level of trust does the public have in science and has this changed during the pandemic? What are the main reasons for a lack of trust?

“Actually, it is important to point out that public trust in science has been relatively high in the United States in recent decades. If you look at indicators such the General Social Survey, you’ll see that people have tended to believe that scientists are acting in the best interests of the public. We hear a lot about mistrust in news headlines but there is a difference between some people being vocal about specific issues related to science and people generally not trusting science.

We hear a lot about mistrust in news headlines but there is a difference between some people being vocal about specific issues related to science and people generally not trusting science.

During the pandemic, scientific evidence has evolved and so at times it might be difficult for people to keep track of the latest developments. At the same time, we also have had a tremendous success story with the arrival of vaccines and so there is a possibility that trust even might have increased among some people during parts of the pandemic with the arrival of good news from scientific research.”

The World Health Organization noted that the COVID-19 pandemic was accompanied by a “massive ‘infodemic’ – an over-abundance of information”. What can be done to help the public identify accurate and reliable guidance, especially when so much information is available and not all of it is trustworthy?

“The first step we need to take is to embrace other people as human beings. As humans, we all are vulnerable to accepting misinformation under some circumstances. Once you understand that we all are in this together, it is easier to see that most people are not willingly accepting false information or willingly sharing false information that they know to be false. That means that we can help people by providing them with timely and comprehensive guides to information that can give them a trusted place to turn rather than scouring the Internet.

We should encourage people to be careful when they encounter information from a single source that seems too good to be true.

In terms of identifying misinformation, we should encourage people to be careful when they encounter information from a single source that seems too good to be true. Comparing information from a few trusted sources can be useful and even just using a quick Internet search to verify that at least some known sources are also reporting a particular idea before you share it can be useful.”

With research being generated at an unprecedented speed, findings may be contradicted by later research. What is the best way to communicate scientific findings to the public when data are being generated and published at such high rates? 

“We need to encourage people to consider science as a process of building knowledge. The idea that science is a process is very important. Sometimes people don’t realise that we use various methods to develop knowledge over time. Once you realise that, it becomes easier to understand why the headlines sometimes change from month to month as we learn more information.”

There has been a push towards open access in recent years and increasingly, plain language summaries are being published alongside research. How important is it to make scientific research more accessible to the public?

“It would be helpful if people could have more access to published scientific research than they do now. We also know, though, that many people don’t have time to wade through piles and piles of journal articles even if they do have access. We could be doing a better job of summarising and translating peer-reviewed research than we currently are.”

We could be doing a better job of summarising and translating peer-reviewed research than we currently are.

The pandemic has led to a rise in preprints to help meet the demand for rapid data dissemination. However, preprints may be reported in the media with no disclosure as to the uncertain nature of the work. What are your views on the use of preprints? Should media outlets be required to highlight if a story is based on a preprint, and explain what that means?

“The publishing process has been slow in some ways historically. It would be helpful if accepted research could be available more quickly than has been the case. That said, the peer-review process also is vital and so it is important that we distinguish between work that has been reviewed by scientific peers in a blinded manner and work that has not been. We should try to optimise the availability of work once it has been accepted for publication and could try to make the peer review process quicker than it has been.”

Sensationalist headlines and exaggerated findings reported by the media undoubtedly lead to misunderstandings of research among the public. In your opinion, how much do issues with scientific publication practices, such as predatory publishers or publication bias, also contribute to misinformation?

“Misinformation is a multifaceted problem with many authors. Predatory publishing practices do not help and the pressure to publish as many papers as possible rather than focusing on a smaller number of high-quality papers likely does contribute to the misinformation problems that we face.”

You have stated that misinformation is not a new phenomenon, but has been exacerbated by social media. How can social media be used as a fast and convenient method of sharing and obtaining information, without perpetuating misinformation?

“Social media make widespread connections and quick exchanges possible and that has been helpful for a lot of people. We need to view social media platforms as a complementary tool, though, and not necessarily the main stage.

We need to view social media platforms as a complementary tool, though, and not necessarily the main stage.

Established journals and institutions can extend their reach through social media platforms and can consider developing accounts with dedicated staff and a commitment to regular updates. Turning away from social media altogether isn’t likely going to solve the dilemmas we face but we also can’t assume any series of tweets will solve our problems either. Keep in mind that many people do not use social media at all and we have to keep looking for ways to reach historically marginalised audiences also.”

What advice would you give to medical publications professionals to help prevent misinformation and restore the public’s trust in science?

“Part of the reason people turn to convenient, accessible, and ubiquitous information sources is because they are convenient, accessible, and ubiquitous. Medical publications professionals should spend time thinking about what they could do to reach people directly and to offer translation of their key research results. Building relationships with audiences can help. We need to worry less about stamping out misinformation and worry more about providing people with a steady diet of information that serves their needs.”

We need to worry less about stamping out misinformation and worry more about providing people with a steady diet of information that serves their needs.

Brian Southwell is Senior Director of RTI International’s Science in the Public Sphere programme. He is also a faculty member at Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, as well as the creator and host of radio show The Measure of Everyday Life and an advisor for NOVA Science Studio. For more information, contact news@rti.org or follow Brian on Twitter.

—————————————————–

—————————————————–

Recorded 20 January 2021 as a MedComms Networking webinar. Produced by NetworkPharma.tv

——————————————————–