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

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

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

Summaries of Day 1

Presidential address

---

KEY TAKEAWAYS

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

KEY TAKEAWAY

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

---

Breaking down complexity in healthcare delivery

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

The importance of conversations

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

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

Artificial Intelligence and redefining VUCA

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

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

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

Member research oral presentations

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

---

KEY TAKEAWAY

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

KEY TAKEAWAY

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

---

KEY TAKEAWAY

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

---

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

Key barriers to patient engagement

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

Tools and resources to support engagement

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

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

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

Measuring the impact of engagement

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

New guiding principles on the horizon

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

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

---

KEY TAKEAWAY

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

---

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

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

Key ethical and legal considerations

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

Towards responsible AI use

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

KEY TAKEAWAY

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

---

Mitigation of bias should be central to medical publication strategies.

 Statistical bias: a case study

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

AI perspectives

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

LLMs are always certain, sometimes right.

Publishing and Medical Writing perspectives

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

Recommended approaches to mitigating bias

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

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

---

KEY TAKEAWAYS

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

---

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

 A new era for publication ethics

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

A new user-friendly format

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

Real world dilemmas: the code in practice

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

Empowering publication professionals

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

Guided poster tour

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

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

Roundtable Sessions

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

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

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

——————————————————–

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

——————————————————–