The 2025 ISMPP Academy takes place on November 13-14 in Boston.

REGISTER TODAY!
Registration is open until October 30, 2025

ISMPP’s 2-day interactive educational academy provides real-world solutions and focuses on implementation across four critical areas: Future of Work (AI), Compliance and Clarity, Operational Success, and Communication Impact. View the full agenda online!

Topics covered include:

• Publication planning
• Visual communications
• GPP and publication policies/SOPs
• Plain language summaries
• Real-world evidence
• Practical AI

 Academy features:

• 6 unique active learning sessions – for both newer professionals and experienced professionals
• Evaluate case studies
• Group problem-solving
• Certification: earn up to 10 CMPP credits
• Networking: two days of face-to-face professional connection
• Solutions: visit the Tabletop Exhibit Gallery showcasing medical communications and technology providers

PLUS Technology Demos, Exhibitors, Networking, and More!

VIEW the meeting agenda. REGISTER BY OCTOBER 30!
Learn about ISMPP at: www.ismpp.org

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• MedTech compliance now centres on education, not promotion—early vetting is key.
• Future meetings must shift from information delivery to emotional, transformative experiences.
• Pre- and post-meeting engagement using AI, storytelling, and gamification boosts long-term impact.

A recent report from the International Congress and Convention Association (ICCA) on The Future of Healthcare Meetings 2024, held in Zurich, offers critical insights for pharma and medical technology professionals navigating the future of scientific events. Discussions centred on designing meetings for lasting impact, aligning with evolving compliance frameworks, and extending educational engagement across the full event lifecycle.

Designing for new generations: meeting formats must evolve

In a panel hosted by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, experts from life sciences, congress planning, and preventive medicine emphasised that medical meetings must shift from lecture-heavy formats to experiences built around interaction and flexibility. To meet the needs of younger healthcare professionals—who seek work-life balance and digest content differently—sessions should be shorter, wellness oriented, and digitally enabled.

Medical meetings must shift from lecture-heavy formats to experiences built around interaction and flexibility.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and digital platforms are seen as essential to delivering these “experience meetings”, supporting personalised learning and inclusive participation. The design of meeting spaces and formats should follow suit, prioritising delegate experience and sustainability.

Compliance as strategic currency: pharma’s role is evolving

A dedicated compliance session brought together voices from International Pharmaceutical Congress Advisory Association, European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy, Congrex, and others to explore how changing regulations are reshaping pharma’s involvement in medical meetings. A key trend is the move from traditional sponsorship to educational grants, with industry support often contingent on final Conference Vetting System approval.

Speakers stressed that early collaboration and a shared understanding of compliance codes (European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations, local legislation) are vital. Medical technology firms are taking a firmer stance on excluding promotional elements, focusing strictly on educational value. Workshops showed that building internal compliance expertise—particularly within medical societies—is crucial for fostering trust and enabling agile, regulation-compliant event planning.

Extending impact: engagement beyond the conference hall

A session led by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation showcased how events can maintain momentum post-meeting. Case studies featured AI-driven storytelling, gamified escape rooms, and hybrid learning environments that personalise and extend the learning journey. These strategies support long-term behavioural change and reflect a growing shift toward continuous engagement rather than isolated events.

Brief context: wider healthcare and communication trends

Opening remarks from Felix Strobl (European Society of Preventive Medicine) framed healthcare’s shift to a “4Ps” model:

• Preventive
• Personalised
• Predictive
• Participatory.

Other speakers addressed inefficiencies in science communication (Dr Mike Morrison), the psychology of emotional design (Pigalle Tavakkoli), and the evolving role of medical societies as cross-sector conveners (Daniel Palomo and panel).

Together, these themes reinforce a shared direction: medical meetings must become more meaningful, measurable, and compliant—designed not just to inform, but to transform.

————————————————–

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.

——————————————————–

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

You can read our summary of Day 1 here; and our Day 3 summary here.

Summaries of Day 2

Keynote – Advancing health equity through inclusive communication

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Reaching diverse populations is essential for increasing health equity. Medical publication professionals have a role in ensuring reach and accessibility of their materials, so that the existing barriers to healthcare engagement are not reinforced.

The need to build trust

Dr Lisa Fitzpatrick (Grapevine Health) started her presentation by sharing some videos of people talking on the street about what sources they trust for medical information. Instead of doctors, people are often more likely to trust online conversations and relatives; this is partly because the language that doctors use is too technical. Because of this, healthcare professionals are often failing to build links with the communities they are trying to reach with health information.

Health literacy matters

Dr Fitzpatrick reported that low health literacy costs $238 billion annually in outcomes, affecting the ability of individuals to understand and act on the healthcare information they receive. Medical communication professionals often overestimate people’s level of medical understanding, resulting in materials that are incomprehensible to the average person. Dr Fitzpatrick challenged us to think more like the people we’re trying to communicate with and less like academics. She also stressed the importance of listening and responding to feedback, so we understand the barriers that may exist to accessing the information.

Bridging the digital divide

Dr Fitzpatrick felt that the “digital divide” was too often blamed for a failure of reaching people with healthcare information. However, it is clear that people want healthcare information and are actively seeking it. She urged healthcare stakeholders to be bolder in engaging digitally, to counter the risk averse approach that has prevented engagement in online spaces.

Reaching clinical trial populations

We all recognise the importance of diversity within clinical trial populations and the need for all communities to be represented. This requires us to reach out to under-represented communities to gain the trust of patients. This should involve local primary care physicians, who have not traditionally been approached, but are best situated to build these links.

Be creative, be courageous

Dr Fitzpatrick concluded her presentation by urging medical publications professionals to be more creative and courageous in reaching patients via social media. By prioritising plain, inclusive language and health literacy principles, we can demonstrate that we are committed to communities, and can build the trust needed to help people achieve better health engagement and outcomes.

By prioritising plain, inclusive language and health literacy principles, we can demonstrate that we are committed to communities, and can build the trust needed to help people achieve better health engagement and outcomes.

 A chorus of voices: the power of representation in the medical research lifecycle

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Diverse trial participation requires sustained community engagement, respectful communication, and transparent result sharing to ensure equity, trust, and scientific validity.

Diverse representation in clinical trials is vital for equitable healthcare and scientifically valid outcomes. Yet many trials still frequently underrepresent the populations most impacted by disease. Behtash Bahador (CISCRP) and Patrick Gee (iAdvocate) explored the barriers to the inclusion of diverse populations in research and shared strategies for lasting change.

Beyond race and ethnicity: addressing all predictors of healthcare access

Bahador outlined key regulatory milestones, including the FDA’s 1997 guidance to include women and minorities in clinical trials. While encouraging progress has been made in tackling racial and ethnic disparities in trial enrolment, Bahador stressed that other demographic factors—such as socioeconomic status—must also be addressed to truly achieve representative research.

Community first: speaking the language of love

Gee shared a compelling patient perspective, reflecting on how a lack of clear communication shaped his own healthcare journey. He underscored the importance of sustained community engagement and advocated for a more human-centred approach: “Speak in the language of love.” Gee suggested establishing relationships with both community leaders and members through consistent interactions, speaking with love and respect, and understanding the needs the community wants to address.

Initiatives such as use of mobile research education centres and sponsoring of community-led art contests illustrate how respectful engagement can break down barriers. While the global Perceptions and Insights study shows improvements in willingness to participate in trials, awareness remains limited. People most commonly encounter trial information through social media or online advertisements rather than via healthcare providers. Preferred trial formats still include local, in-person options—especially for African American participants—underscoring the need to tailor approaches.

You have to talk to the human being before you address the affliction.

The speakers called for researchers to communicate clinical trial results, involve patients on advisory boards, and invest in communities. As Gee poignantly observed: “You have to talk to the human being before you address the affliction.”

The sound of strategy: data-driven personalised communications

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Effective personalisation requires an understanding of HCPs behaviours, preferences, and expertise.

Personalised, data-driven communication can be impeded by factors such as data integration, compliance, or technical barriers. This plenary session explored how leveraging strategic insights into the learning behaviours and preferences of diverse audiences can help communicators to deliver content, which is both engaging, and relevant.

Leveraging strategic insights into the learning behaviours and preferences of diverse audiences can help communicators to deliver content, which is both engaging, and relevant.

Tailoring content for HCPs

Gary Lyons (Coronado Research) opened the session by explaining that healthcare professionals (HCPs) value personalised learning experiences. Describing the segmentation of HCPs based on their functional roles (eg, opinion leader or nurse) and behaviours (eg, ‘eager expert’ or ‘selective implementor’), Lyons reasoned that both the content and delivery of communication should be tailored to the preferences of these segments.

Expanding on this, Shweta Rane (Bridge Bio Pharma) explored how an audience’s level of expertise can be a key consideration in providing context-driven communication. Whilst an opinion leader may prefer to focus on a study’s key outcomes and objectives, an advanced individual may have more interest in survival data. Similarly, using tailored language that is specific to the individual’s knowledge, such as hyper-personalised communication for experts, and generic or plain language for beginners, is an important strategy for creating personalised content.

AI’s role in personalisation 

A live poll showed that whilst the audience considered AI a potentially useful tool for personalisation, many were underconfident about how to achieve this. Lyons described effective prompts as those which convey the tone, language, focus, and level of granularity needed for AI to create content, which is tailored to a HCPs segment. Though he believes we can achieve “very good content using an AI model”, Lyons cautioned that human refinement of AI output is still necessary.

A crescendo in health equity: transparent post-trial publications in tune with evolving expectations

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Post-trial publications should reflect the people behind the data, not just the data itself.

In this parallel session, moderated by Michelle Ouellette (Syneos Health), Jade Tuttle (Syneos Health), Charlotte Singh (Sanofi), and Shailesh Desai (Takeda) brought attention to a growing imperative: ethical and inclusive post-trial engagement, not only to close the loop with participants, but also to build lasting trust with historically underserved communities.

The session explored how medical publication professionals must evolve their practices in line with shifting regulatory expectations. New guidance from agencies such as the FDA and MHRA is making it clear that diversity, inclusion, and transparency are no longer optional in post-trial engagement.

To meet this challenge, publication teams must embed principles of equity early in the clinical development process, and move beyond check-box dissemination towards content that truly reflects patients’ lived experiences. Key strategies discussed included:

• Framing demographic data with context, rather than assumptions, for example avoiding using race as a biological proxy.
• Using inclusive, specific language to reflect multidimensional identities.
• Translating data into narratives that resonate with diverse communities.

A compelling case study demonstrated how trust was built with Aboriginal organisations through timely, transparent updates and community-led review of publications – an approach that prioritised respect, accuracy, and relevance over tokenism.

Ultimately, patients want to know that their participation in clinical trials matters.

Ultimately, patients want to know that their participation in clinical trials matters. Whether through personalised summaries, guidance on next steps, or a simple thank you, post-trial communications should acknowledge contributions and support participants in decision-making processes beyond the study. The session closed with the following call to action for medical publication professionals: ensure your work doesn’t just serve regulators, but also the communities who make research possible.

Measuring the impact of scientific communications in launch excellence: using medical affairs analytics and real world examples to identify best practice (sponsored session by IQVIA)

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The successful introduction of a new product hinges on making strategic, data-driven noise where it matters most.

Rebecca Galbraith (IQVIA)  and Joseph B. Laudano (IQVIA) led a sponsored parallel session on how Medical Affairs analytics can sharpen product communication strategies and steer successful launches via data-driven planning.

The evolution of technology means that today’s analytics can do more than just identify communications channels; they can identify channels relevant for a particular topic and audience. Modern tools can help distinguish which congresses and journals offer the best platform for specific data, track audience engagement across therapeutic areas, and even predict the impact of communications strategies through AI and machine learning.

Modern tools can help distinguish which congresses and journals offer the best platform for specific data, track audience engagement across therapeutic areas, and even predict the impact of communications strategies through AI and machine learning.

The speakers shared real-world examples and case studies from launches that achieved ‘Launch Excellence’. Common critical factors for success were clear, evidence-based narratives, targeted dissemination, and strategic collaboration with key medical experts. In addition, the session highlighted the importance of owning scientific themes within a therapeutic area, by not only developing a strong scientific narrative, but also crucially, choosing the right arenas and collaborators to amplify that message. As one speaker put it, “It’s not only noise that matters, but making noise in the right place.”

Medical Affairs teams were encouraged to go beyond traditional dissemination success metrics, for example paper acceptance rates or presentation attendance, and embrace more dynamic tools such as Share of Scientific Voice (SoSV), opinion leader ranking, and clinical adoption analysis.

For Medical Affairs professionals, the message was clear: strategic, analytics-informed communication is essential for maximising engagement and transforming data into impact. 

A toolkit for harmonising publication extenders

KEY TAKEAWAY

• ISMPP’s new toolkit provides clear guidance to standardise the development of publication extenders, enhancing their reach and impact.

As the field of medical communications evolves, the demand for impactful and accessible content grows. In the parallel session led by Ann Overton (Fingerpaint Medical), Hamish McDougall (Sage Publishing), and Lana Vegman (Regeneron), attendees were introduced to a new toolkit from the ISMPP Digital and Visual Committee, designed to harmonise the development and use of publication extenders.

Publication extenders—such as infographics, graphical abstracts, PLS, and video abstracts—are becoming increasingly important for broadening reach and improving accessibility.

Publication extenders—such as infographics, graphical abstracts, PLS, and video abstracts—are becoming increasingly important for broadening reach and improving accessibility. At one publisher, manuscripts featuring extenders rose from just 8 in 2017 to 47 in January 2022. Despite this growth, widespread adoption remains limited by journal restrictions, lack of author awareness, and resources constraints.

The ISMPP toolkit seeks to address these challenges by providing clear guidance on standard definitions, best practices, and development workflows. It encourages early planning of extenders, active author involvement, and the submission of extenders alongside manuscripts for peer review. As Vegman noted, “Change requires a suggested pathway and then adoption of the suggested pathway.”

Part 1 of the toolkit, focusing on the most commonly used extender types, will soon be available through ISMPP eLearn, marking a significant step towards more consistent and engaging scientific communications.

Guided Poster Tour

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

• Identifying processes and challenges in medical publication planning and execution for small biopharmaceutical companies – Lauren Carroll, Claudia Piano, Sara Duggan, Melanie Sweetlove, Vishal Gor, Donna Kelley, Leonie Pinkham
• Survey results: How high employee turnover in medical communications affects work quality and client satisfaction – Krista Terry, Elizabeth James

PRO tips: development and use of patient-reported outcome measures and publication best practices

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Integrate PROMs thoughtfully and early in study designs to ensure meaningful, patient-focused data collection.

Recognising the central role of patient experience in medical product development, this parallel session featured Mary Kate Ladd (Evidera), Carrie Lancos (AstraZeneca), and Erin Tomaszewski (AbbVie), who shared practical strategies for integrating patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) into clinical and real-world studies.

What are PROMs and why do they matter?

PROMs capture data directly from patients without clinician interpretation, providing valuable insight into how treatments affect patients’ daily lives. Developing these measures is a rigorous, iterative process involving patient input, expert guidance, and psychometric validation to ensure the tools are reliable, responsive, and capable of capturing meaningful outcomes.

How should PROMs be selected and integrated?

The FDA’s patient-focused drug development guidance highlights 4 key steps:

• Characterise patient experience and unmet needs.
• Select or develop PROMs that assess outcomes meaningful to patients.
• Define clear, quantifiable endpoints to evaluate change.
• Consider the audience when presenting PROM data to ensure clarity and relevance.

Publishing PROM data: key considerations

PROM data differ from clinical trial data, often presenting higher rates of missing values and limited options for imputation. Authors should clearly explain PROM concepts and scoring systems, address copyright and licensing considerations, and ensure data are accessible and understandable to all stakeholders, including patients.

Authors should clearly explain PROM concepts and scoring systems, address copyright and licensing considerations, and ensure data are accessible and understandable to all stakeholders, including patients.

PRO tips

As the session concluded, the speakers shared 4 tips for effective PROM implementation and publication:

• Familiarise yourself with key PROMs in your therapeutic area.
• Collaborate early with PROM colleagues.
• Use clear, consistent language to explain PROM concepts.
• Confirm all copyright and licensing requirements before use or publication.

A pubs rhapsody: is this real pubs life? Is this inequity? Our global landscape, must address our reality

KEY TAKEAWAY

• AI can help level the global playing field in medical publications—but only if used thoughtfully, with cultural awareness, robust training, and a commitment to true equity.

Language and legacy

The current medical publications landscape privileges English-speaking authors and Western cultural norms, creating structural barriers for non-native English speakers and under-represented regions. Jonathan Lee (Takeda), Blair Hesp (Kainic Medical Communications), Julie Yaun (Wiley), Yaming Wang (Alphabet Health) and Anne Wong (Roche) described how this ultimately leads to loss of insights from experts in particular regions and presents a barrier to understanding regional clinical practice and patient experiences.

Everyday inequities faced by experts include out of hours calls due to time zone differences, translation fatigue, and journals rejecting country-specific (non-Western) datasets. However inequity goes far beyond this, global health journals are mainly located in high-income English-speaking counties, journal editorial boards lack diversity and pharmaceutical companies prioritise selected countries and regions in their strategy.

The AI opportunity

AI could be a potential equaliser. Tools that assist with translation, editing, peer review, and journal submissions could allow broader participation in global discourse. But concerns remain—AI risks reinforcing bias, misinterpreting cultural nuance, or producing content flagged as AI-generated.

Tools that assist with translation, editing, peer review, and journal submissions could allow broader participation in global discourse.

How can inequity be addressed by publication professionals?

Speakers urged the community to redefine their current understanding of diversity, equity, and inclusion within the context of language and culture by:

• including regional journals and conferences in publication plans

• training in AI tools that support global authorship

• recognising AI’s limitations and partnering to improve tools

• shifting language norms to embrace non-Western voices.

In summary, medical publications are skewed towards the predominant Western culture — we must be more inclusive to ensure that patient needs are met. Tools that facilitate input from global experts could help address disparities.

Exploring the CMPP^TM credential: an expert-led interactive session

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• CMPP supports professional growth while providing global recognition and a growing community.
• A new platform makes recertification maintenance more accessible.

CMPP evolution and value 

In a panel discussion hosted by the ISMPP Certification Board, Dana Fox (IPG), Faith DiBiasi (AstraZeneca), Claudia Piano (ApotheCom), and Danita Sutton (ISMPP) explored the development, value, and practicalities of obtaining and maintaining the Certified Medical Publication Professional (CMPP) credential. Since the first certification in 2009, the CMPP programme has grown significantly, with 1,885 professionals certified across 30 countries and 6 continents.

The panellists emphasised the CMPP credential’s impact on career development, describing it as a mark of credibility and a catalyst for confidence. This is reflected in the growing global uptake. “When you pass the test, it’s a great confidence builder,” one speaker noted.

CMPP certification and recertification

To pursue certification, candidates must apply for and sit a comprehensive exam. The exam spans 3 hours, includes 150 questions across 3 domains, and is available either in-person at Pearson VUE centres or online via OnVUE. To aid preparation, ISMPP provides a candidate handbook and access to volunteer mentors, helping to ensure candidates feel supported throughout their journey.

All supporting resources – including guidance documents, exam details, and mentoring options – are readily available on the ISMPP website, ensuring transparency and accessibility for prospective and current CMPP holders.

Crucially, the panel discussed recent improvements to the 5-year recertification process. Professionals can maintain their CMPP status by retaking the exam or through continuing education. Maintenance of the credential through continuing education is now more user-friendly thanks to the introduction of LearningBUILDER, a new certification management platform launched in January 2025.

Aspiring professionals are encouraged to explore the CMPP pathway, not only as a mark of expertise but also as a strategic step in long-term career advancement.

Aspiring professionals are encouraged to explore the CMPP pathway, not only as a mark of expertise but also as a strategic step in long-term career advancement.

Member research oral presentations

Publishing plain language summaries (PLS): successes and challenges 

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Education, clearer guidelines, and publisher support are essential to improve the discoverability and availability of PLS.

Nelma Pertega Gomes (IPSEN) explored current challenges and successes in the implementation of PLS from both author and publisher perspectives.

The author perspective

Of 72 manuscripts published by 1 company (July 2022 to October 2024), 56 included a PLS. Journals not accepting or removing PLS without notice were common barriers. Pertega Gomes encouraged authors to pursue training, select journals that support PLS, and communicate with publishers.

The publisher perspective

Over 3 years, 1 publisher issued 1,053 PLS, advocating for a 250-word text format. The biggest barrier is a lack of understanding among authors and editors about PLS.

PLS discoverability relies on publishers tagging them in PubMed metadata, but many remain behind paywalls, especially in top-tier journals. Although first authors may share PLS through direct contact, most people are unaware of this option. Uniform policies and increased education across journals, publishers and stakeholders are urgently needed.

Uniform policies and increased education across journals, publishers and stakeholders are urgently needed.

Equity in access to information on newly approved drugs: how readily available are plain language summaries?

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Improving the discoverability and access to PLS, particularly in top-tier journals, is critical to advancing health equity.

Kaitlin Stanton (Nucleus Global) examined how the availability of PLS for clinical trial publications affects health equity.

Using a dataset of 192 FDA-approved drugs from 2021 to 2024, the study found 219 associated pivotal trial manuscripts; 13 PLS were linked to these manuscripts, with just 10 available via open access. Additionally, 31 manuscripts had corresponding PLS of publications (PLSPs), primarily for drugs approved in 2022 and 2023. PLS availability declined after drug approval, and journals that published PLS were most commonly lower-tier journals.

The persistent use of highly technical language is a significant barrier to equitable access to health information.

Stanton emphasised that the persistent use of highly technical language is a significant barrier to equitable access to health information, stating “the primary focus [of drug companies] appears to be getting clinical data to a clinical audience.” She called for a collective commitment—especially from top-tier journals and industry sponsors—to ensure that trial results are discoverable and accessible to the wider public.

Harmonising the future: generative AI’s effects on medical communications and cross-industry collaborations

KEY TAKEAWAY

• AI can boost speed and scale in publication development but requires collaboration between pharmaceutical companies and agencies to prioritise quality and embrace new working models.

A new tempo for MedComms

The panel comprised a mix of pharmaceutical and agency leaders: Jason Gardner (Real Chemistry), Jennifer Ghith (GSK), Kristyn Morgan (Envision), and Catherine Skobe (Pfizer). In their experience, bold adaptation is needed as generative AI reshapes the medical communications landscape.

AI offers speed, scale, and smart insights, but success hinges on collaborative strategy, ethical guardrails, and robust quality standards.

Proof in practice

Pfizer has already seen AI-assisted tools reduce first-draft times by 40% and, in some cases, overall manuscript timelines by 15%.

Skobe described how Pfizer has already seen AI-assisted tools reduce first-draft times by 40% and, in some cases, overall manuscript timelines by 15%. Applications of AI range from literature searches and summarisation to insight generation and sentiment analysis. Yet, AI uptake remains patchy—only 20% of manuscripts currently use generative tools despite only 7% of authors refusing AI use outright (due to journal or personal concerns).

Tips for AI success

From innovation labs to feedback loops, the panel offered a practical roadmap:

• Embed collaboration into contracts and training.

• Use shared AI tools when appropriate.

• Design collaborative innovation labs.

• Establish transparent best practices for implementation (most impactful).

• Maintain feedback loops (most feasible).

A steep learning curve 

Use of AI can achieve high quality publications that meet ICMJE recommendations. In future, trust, clarity of use, and communication will be essential to maintain quality and preserve longstanding relationships between agencies and pharmaceutical companies. Visit the ISMPP AI resources to keep up to date with industry guidance regarding AI use.

Behind the music: a candid conversation with journal editors and publishers

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Fraudulent submissions are on the rise, PLS lack consistency, and innovation is essential but not equally accessible for all journals.

In a candid discussion moderated by Kate Travis (Retraction Watch), Sam Cavana (Taylor & Francis), Lauren Coligan (PLOS), and Dan Kulp (American Urological Association) lifted the lid on the biggest challenges shaking up medical publishing today. From papermills to the promise (and pitfalls) of PLS.

PLS: good intentions, unclear execution

PLS were created to make science more accessible—but in practice, they’re often overlooked. Authors tend to treat them as an afterthought, and few journals enforce consistent standards. The panel called for:

• Better visibility: PLS should be easy to find and clearly linked to the original article.

• Standardisation: clearer guidelines across journals would improve quality.

• Appropriate review: but by whom—editors, scientists, or patients?

Retractions aren’t always scandalous

One in 500 papers now gets retracted (up from 1 in 5,000), with data manipulation now more readily detectible. Audience polling busted the myth that all retractions signal misconduct. Retractions may stem from honest errors—not just fraud.

Fraud on the rise 

Papermills bribe editors, forge reviewer emails, and resubmit rejected work under different authors. Journals are fighting back—but at great cost. Some are rethinking author-suggested reviewers and flagging suspicious activity early. Moreover predatory journals are also on the rise: view the COPE member list designed to exclude them.

Innovation: uneven but essential

Innovation is vital to keep up with the rapidly changing landscape, but not all publishers are equally equipped to pursue it.

One thing is clear: innovation is vital to keep up with the rapidly changing landscape, but not all publishers are equally equipped to pursue it. Grant-funded journals such as PLOS are not influenced by investors and so play an important role in pushing boundaries. However, commercial journals often hold the keys to scalable innovation thanks to greater resources and investor backing.

Roundtable Sessions

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

• EDI as jazz fusion: blending diverse tones to transform medical communications
• Bridging the gaps between global and regional teams for optimal content delivery
• Diversity reporting in publications: composing a clear path for authors through updated guidance
• Symphony of submissions: demystifying video and podcast articles
• The people’s PubMed: empowering patients in the age of misinformation
• Tuning out predatory publishers: how to identify and avoid insidious publication practices
• Conducting the publication planning process with a multidisciplinary team: how to ensure the team is playing the same tune
• Shaping the future of publication metrics
• Social media hits: amplifying your medical publications to reach chart-topping success
• A debut concert of ‘accelerando publications’, by the innovation symphony orchestra (member proposal)
• Empathy as innovation: composing empathetic scientific writing with diverse patient perspectives
• Efficiency: rethinking RFIs for smarter decision-making (ISMPP ORION RFP Task Force)
• A crescendo in health equity: transparent post-trial publications in tune with evolving expectations
• Using medical affairs analytics to hit the high notes in scientific communications
• Translating the score: best practices for incorporating plain language summaries into integrated publication plans
• AI language editing for non-native English speakers – is it the same as generative AI?
• The secrets to working effectively with small pharma and biotech
• Never miss a beat: strategies to address data gaps in pharmaceutical research using patient perspectives
• Hot topics in medical publications

Poster and ISMPP Professional Excellence Awards

The awards presentation began with the announcement of this year’s poster prize winners, celebrating innovation, clarity and forward thinking in medical publications:

• Most reflective of meeting theme: Breaking into medical writing: professional advice for new medical writers – John Vrbensky, Emilie Croisier, Brittany Eldridge, Alyson Rice, Patty Phipps, Sharon Dirksen, Pauline Ng, and Reem Berro.

• Best original research: The battle of voices: AI-generated versus human-narrated podcasts in publications – Rindcy Davis, Peter Benko, Joseph Gallo, Katelyn Frisone, and Pauline Ng.

• Best visual and accessible design: Speaking their language: Healthcare professionals’ use of plain language materials with patients – Hamish McDougall, Isabel Katz, Alexa Holland, and Sarah J. Clements.

• Future forward: Shaping patient involvement in publications: identifying and overcoming barriers through expert insights – Shweta Rane, Dawn Lobban, Trishna Bharadia, and Bradley Meehan.

Following the poster prizes, attention turned to the ISMPP Professional Excellence Awards, where the Society celebrated the exceptional contributions of its members. Awards were presented in the following categories:

• Outstanding Committee Member Award: Tim Stentiford

• CMPP Award: Haruko Isomura

• Rising Star Award: John Vrbensky

• President’s Award: Steve Palmisano and Todd Parker

• Lifetime Achievement Award: Gordon Muir-Jones

Many congratulations to all of this year’s winners!

Why not also read our summaries of Day 1 and Day 3 of the meeting? 

——————————————————–

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

——————————————————–

The 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.

——————————————————–

The 21^st Annual Meeting of ISMPP takes place May 12 – May 14 at the Grand Hyatt in Washington, D.C.

 REGISTER TODAY!
Registration is open until April 25, 2025

The theme for ISMPP’s milestone 21^st Annual Meeting is Diversity and Innovation: In Concert. This meeting gathers diverse professionals to inspire creativity, foster innovation, and advance medical communications for a more inclusive and dynamic future.

Don’t miss the premier medical communications and medical publications conference of 2025!

Topics covered include:

• Artificial Intelligence
• Omnichannel
• Plain Language Summaries
• Best Practices
• Data Visualization
• Publication Planning
• Digital Extenders
• Metrics and Analytics

9 Educational Workshop Offerings – 4 NEW Topics this Year! For both newer professionals and experienced professionals. Spaces are limited so sign up today!

Keynote Speakers, Member Research Posters/Oral Presentations, Exhibitors, Receptions, Networking, Awards, and more!

Company Team Discount/Champion Sponsorship for 10 Team Members or More!

Please contact exh-spon@ismpp.org for a discount code.

VIEW the meeting agenda. REGISTER TODAY!
Learn about ISMPP at: www.ismpp.org

—————————————————–

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 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 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.

Summaries of the second day of the meeting can be found here.

Summaries of Day 1

Chair’s welcome, CMPP update and ISMPP presidential address

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Attendance and engagement at ISMPP EU continue to grow, reflecting an active and collaborative community of medical publications professionals.
• ISMPP’s core values are fundamental as the industry embraces innovation and integrates new technologies.
• The CMPP programme celebrates 15 years of excellence, with increased global representation and accessibility.

Mithi Ahmed-Richards (Taylor & Francis) opened the 2025 European Meeting of ISMPP, recognising the continued growth of the meeting with increasing numbers of abstract submissions and poster presentations. Acknowledging the collaborative spirit of the medical publications community, she emphasised how ISMPP and its members drive advancements in publication practices and ultimately improve patient care. Noting the meeting’s theme of Core Values for an Integrated Age, Ahmed-Richards stressed that trustworthiness surpasses skill and that core values must be demonstrated through actions.

Ann Gordon (Chair of the ISMPP Certification Board) provided an update on the Certified Medical Publication Professional (CMPP) programme, which is celebrating 15 years of professional excellence in medical publications this year. The CMPP community has grown to 1,659 professionals across 31 countries, spanning 6 continents, with South America most recently represented. Achievements in 2024 included the launch of the LearningBuilder certification platform, a significant rise in CMPP mentors, and enhanced accessibility through financial assistance for exam fees. Gordon reinforced the value of the CMPP credential in demonstrating expertise, leadership, and ethical publication practices.

Expanding on the meeting’s theme, Rob Matheis (ISMPP President and CEO) emphasised the importance of balancing core values with innovation, citing the need to consider evolving information sources beyond traditional medical journals. He outlined ongoing key initiatives of the society, including patient membership programmes, a renewed presence in the Asia-Pacific region, and the hosting of #MedComms Day. Matheis concluded with a call for members to actively engage in ISMPP activities to further strengthen the community of medical publication professionals.

Keynote: Finding core values in an integrated and sustainable world

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Andy Pag’s sustainable travel experiments highlight the power of incremental progress and the importance of clear communication in environmental advocacy.

Exploring sustainability: insights from Andy Pag’s adventures

Former BBC journalist and engineer Andy Pag shared his two-decade journey of pioneering sustainable travel. Though often labelled an environmentalist, Pag considers himself an experimenter seeking practical solutions.

Innovative expeditions

Pag’s first major sustainability experiment involved driving from London to Timbuktu in an old Land Rover powered by biodiesel made from waste chocolate. This was considered the first-ever carbon-negative expedition. He later organised the “Grease to Greece” rally, where participants scavenged waste vegetable oil from restaurants to fuel their cars, successfully completing the journey from London to Greece without fossil fuels.

Building on these experiences, Pag set out to travel around the world using sustainable transport. He restored an old school bus and adapted it to run on waste oil, successfully completing the journey while highlighting the potential of alternative fuels.

Lessons in communication

Pag transitioned from experimenter to advocate, emphasising the need for precise messaging. He cautioned that achievements, if not communicated thoughtfully, can be misinterpreted—an insight particularly relevant to medical publication professionals.

The Hero’s journey and scientific method

Pag drew parallels between the hero’s journey—a narrative arc involving a call to adventure, challenges, and transformation—and the scientific method. Both involve exploration, overcoming obstacles, and sharing newfound knowledge.

Trust and incremental progress

Throughout his travels, Pag learned to trust in the kindness of strangers, such as a voluntary military escort in Afghanistan. He advocates for celebrating small advancements in sustainability, recognising that incremental steps collectively lead to significant progress.

Personal choices for reducing carbon footprint

Pag suggests three actions: making sustainable lifestyle choices, supporting policies through voting, and fostering scientific literacy. His experiences serve as a testament to the impact of innovation, communication, and small steps in tackling environmental challenges.

Pag advocates for celebrating small advancements in sustainability, recognising that incremental steps collectively lead to significant progress.

Looking beyond traditional authorship: partnering with patients for inclusion in scientific conferences

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The role of the patient at scientific conferences has evolved, from exclusion to tokenism to leadership.
• Patients are not conference “guests”, but expert partners helping to shape the future.

The time has come to evolve beyond tokenism and acknowledge patients as experts in their own right.

The first plenary session of the day explored the evolution of patient participation in scientific conferences, from exclusion to tokenism to active leadership. One such leader is patient advocate Mercy Shibemba, who shared her experience of growing up with HIV and the associated stigma. She highlighted the principle of “Nothing for us without us”, and underscored that seminal campaigns such as Undetectable = Untransmissible would not have been possible without meaningful patient engagement.

Amanda Boughey (Envision Pharma Group) reflected on the evolution of patient engagement at ISMPP itself, noting the significant progress made since she started working in MedComms 20 years ago. However, challenges remain: results from an interactive quiz during Boughey’s presentation revealed that the biggest perceived barrier to patient involvement at scientific conferences is concerns around compliance.

Enter self-described “compliance nerd” Rina Newton (Code Clarity). Newton clarified some of the misconceptions surrounding patient participation at scientific conferences, for instance, while EU regulations prohibit direct-to-patient drug advertising, this does not preclude patients from attending conferences, where they may:

• learn about trial findings
• interact with other attendees
• engage with medical stands
• ask questions about medicines
• speak at symposia
• give advice on advisory boards.

Simon Stones (Amica Scientific) stressed the need for stakeholders to proactively argue for patient involvement at conferences, citing the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) congress as an example of good practice. Specifically, we should:

• move beyond tokenism—patients should not be viewed as congress “guests”, but as equal partners shaping the future
• invest in patient leadership
• build a culture of respect by normalising patient involvement
• measure impact.

It should be noted that patient-driven impact metrics may differ from conventional measures of success. Shibemba gave the example of a study of youth-friendly health services for people with HIV that failed to achieve its primary outcome (viral suppression), but was considered successful from the participants’ perspective as it demonstrated the importance of integrated health services.

Pascale Cavillon (Ipsen) explained Ipsen’s patient-driven approach starts with the “why”, using early engagement with patients to establish their unmet needs, before collaborating with patient communities to translate science into meaningful solutions. Cavillon highlighted initiatives such as immersive experience training for healthcare professionals to highlight the lived reality of rare disease.

All panellists agreed that the time has come to evolve beyond tokenism and acknowledge patients as experts in their own right.

Sustaining publication quality in a fast-paced world

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Fast-tracking publications should be reserved for cases of strong justification, and require early, meticulous planning across pharma teams, authors and journals to ensure success.

Expedited publications have become increasingly common, with timelines shrinking from the standard 6 months to as little as 1 month. However, maintaining publication quality requires careful planning, resource allocation, and compliance with Good Publication Practice (GPP) guidelines. During this plenary session, panel members Demetrios Michael (OPEN Health), Karen King (OPEN Health), Sandrine Hardouin (Alexion), Margarita Lens (UCB), Saurabh Gagangras (Novo Nordisk) and Sam Cavana (Taylor and Francis), discussed how to balance speed, quality and compliance when accelerating publication timelines.

Foundation setting

Gagangras likened expedited publications to a dance performance—months of preparation for a precise and rapid execution. Strategic alignment across internal teams is critical. Early engagement with key opinion leaders ensures they are committed to a highly responsive process, while upfront logistical planning—such as completing authorship agreements and pre-submission inquiries—helps avoid delays.

Medical writers should be onboarded early and cover across time zones should be considered. Pre-drafted shell manuscripts and mock figures can allow blinded investigators to review content before database lock. Clear contingency plans for different data outcomes can also help streamline the publication process post-readout.

Compliant author review

Maintaining compliance while expediting timelines requires a structured yet unconventional review process. The panel highlighted the importance of kick-off meetings that clearly define expectations and review timelines, ensuring authors can accommodate shortened deadlines.

The panel also discussed the utility of live review calls to resolve conflicting feedback, and securing calendar dates for these well in advance. Detailed meeting minutes can ensure transparency and compliance while maximising efficiency. Additionally, pre-selecting secondary journal options and understanding the required adaptations in case of rejection helps minimise delays to final publication.

Navigating journal liaison

Cavana provided a publishing perspective on the process. He emphasised that engaging with journals early can smooth the submission and peer review process, but challenges remain, especially in securing reviewers. Cavana advised attendees to consider their use of artificial intelligence (AI) carefully, as well as the adaptability of any potential digital extenders. Journal policies on these aspects can vary widely and might hinder publication or delay the process.

The exception, not the rule

There was unanimous agreement from the panel that expedited publications should remain reserved for cases with strong justification. Examples include areas of unmet needs, Phase III trials supporting regulatory submission, first-in-class drugs, or paradigm-shifting treatments. Fast-track publishing places significant demands on resources and may disrupt ongoing publication plans. Managing stakeholder expectations is also crucial to prevent unrealistic timelines from becoming the norm.

The role of AI

The panel highlighted emerging AI applications could assist the process in the future, and some success has already been demonstrated with plain language summaries (PLS). Other potential uses, such as automated reference management and data validation, are being explored but require further validation to ensure compliance with journal disclosure policies.

Conclusion: need for speed?

 Success in fast-tracking publications involves meticulous preparation, structured review processes, and effective stakeholder communication.

Success in fast-tracking publications involves meticulous preparation, structured review processes, and effective stakeholder communication. While they can accelerate data dissemination, substantial effort is required to balance speed with quality and compliance. It is critical that that these timelines are reserved for rare cases for which there is strong justification.

A discussion on use cases and the adoption of AI within a pharmaceutical, biotech or device company

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Insights from industry highlight AI’s potential to enhance efficiency, quality and value in MedComms.

James Wright (Bioscript Group) led a discussion on the adoption of AI in MedComms with panel members, Pippa Hadland (AstraZeneca), Tom Grant (UCB) and Swati Krishnan (Boehringer Ingelheim). The aim of the session was to further delegates’ understanding of how to use AI in MedComms, by providing insights from the industry perspective.

AI is all around us, but what is it?

Wright opened the session by explaining what AI is. Simply put, AI allows computers and machines to simulate human learning. Indeed, most of us already use AI in our everyday lives, through navigation systems such as Google Maps, virtual assistants, education, and personalisation of online shopping, social media, and online entertainment.

Generative AI can create original content (text, images, video, audio) in response to users’ prompts. Natural Language Processing brings computer science, AI and linguistics together, “enabling computers to understand, interpret, and generate human language in a meaningful and useful way”.

AI in MedComms: panel insights

Several key themes emerged as the panel shared their experiences of developing and using AI for MedComms:

• Use cases – examples of AI tools developed and utilised by panel members included predominantly “low security risk” deliverables such as systematic literature reviews, PLS, and a manuscript first draft proof of concept using published secondary clinical data.
• Efficiency – AI can free-up employees’ time for more strategic tasks while it does the heavy-lifting, eg, summarising large documents, researching new therapy areas, finding details quickly within large quantities of information, or even collating overarching views from 1000s of HCP’s comments in social media.
• Prompts – Wright emphasised that “we get out what we put in” to generative AI, and well-structured prompts are key. UCB have an app that helps with prompt development, and AI can even be prompted to suggest better prompts!
• Quality – while quality may be a common concern, panel members found comparable quality between AI- and human-generated content.
• Value – time-saving with AI may allow budgets to go further, meaning better value for money.
• Data security – maintaining zero risk to patient data, and transparency, are both vital. Security infrastructure around AI is still in its infancy, and represents a challenge, therefore most panel members developed AI tools in-house using closed systems, for “low-risk” projects.
• Industry/agency collaboration – logistical challenges around transparency and security mean that some panel members have kept AI use in-house, while others have formed successful partnerships with trusted vendors.
• Training – experience of AI training comprised a mixture of self-learning through experimentation and online resources, and structured learning through company courses.

AI can free-up employees’ time for more strategic tasks while it does the heavy-lifting. In the future it will likely move beyond low-risk projects to include proprietary data and a wider scope of deliverables.

 What does the future hold for AI in MedComms?

With many companies already testing out AI, in the future it will likely move beyond low-risk projects to include proprietary data and a wider scope of deliverables such as infographics or video content. If one thing is clear from this session, it is that AI in MedComms is here to stay.

Roundtable sessions

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

• Shaping the future of publication metrics
• GenAI in the real world
• AI in scientific publishing: overcoming barriers and bridging perspectives across sectors
• Use of social media in an integrated age
• Inclusive innovation: building a more accessible future in medical education
• Improving publication strategies: bridging standard approaches with innovative, proven frameworks
• Demystifying the submission & guidance for standalone podcast & video articles and extenders
• Cross-publisher plain language article guidance: have your say
• What defines a publication as ‘best-in-class’?
• Strategies for integrated evidence generation throughout product lifecycle: role of the publication professional
• Unlocking omnichannel success: crafting scientific narratives tailored for audiences and persona
• Reformat or reform? Evolving manuscript submission processes to put science first
• Pursuit of parallel publication: potential benefits and current challenges of this growing practice
• Empowering patients in an integrated age: a multidisciplinary approach
• The people’s PubMed: empowering patients in the age of misinformation
• Leveraging AI beyond content creation: creating efficiencies and unlocking possibilities
• Intellectual property and ethical integrity in the digital age: safeguarding publications through collaboration and innovation
• ISMPP code of ethics update: sneak peek and discussion

Guided poster tours

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

• Analysis of oncologists’ anticipation of and response to clinical data dissemination at ESMO 2023 and ESMO 2024
• Transforming poster metrics: a low-cost, privacy-preserving solution to measure engagement of posters
• Establishing a lay review panel to ensure medical research accessibility
• Practical recommendations for the wider implementation and reporting of sex-specific analyses in medical publications
• Sins of the father: current medical guidance based on retracted articles in the literature
• Beyond agreement: how is non-consensus handled in Delphi panels?
• A survey of the experience, motivations, and added-value of freelance medical writing professionals

Hackathon activity: shaping the future of GPP together!

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Industry-wide collaboration is essential for refining GPP, focusing on AI integration, patient authorship, real world evidence, and enhancing equity, diversity, and inclusion.

In this interactive session, attendees collaborated in groups to explore gaps in GPP 2022 guidelines and discuss key considerations for future GPP iterations, focusing on 6 key topics:

Advancements in AI

Discussions delved into the anticipated impact of AI on medical publishing by 2026. Key recommendations were to:

• define the balance between AI and human authorship, with explicit author agreements
• establish AI disclosure requirements and ethical risk assessments
• ensure AI compliance with confidentiality standards (open vs closed systems)
• adapt GPP guidance to keep pace with rapid AI evolution while maintaining professional oversight.

 Defining publication metrics

Participants examined the evolution of publication metrics, questioning whether existing measures effectively capture engagement and impact. The importance of identifying meaningful metrics, highlighting gaps, and ensuring accurate interpretations of publication success were highlighted.

Enhancing patient involvement

The best way to integrate patient involvement within GPP guidance was discussed. Key considerations included:

• whether to consolidate patient guidance in a dedicated section or distribute it throughout GPP
• establishing onboarding materials to support patient authors
• clarifying compensation terms to avoid legal and ethical conflicts
• ensuring patient involvement is meaningful and adds value to publications.

 Integrating real world evidence (RWE)

Challenges in publishing RWE studies include perception of lower impact, delayed relevance by the time of publication, and complex statistical analyses. Solutions proposed by participants were to:

• strengthen collaboration between RWE study teams and internal stakeholders
• incorporate RWE studies in early-stage research planning
• provide dedicated statistical expertise to ensure robust data analysis.

 Promoting equity, diversity, and inclusion

Discussions underscored the need to embed equity, diversity, and inclusion principles in GPP updates, and recommendations were to:

• use existing journal lexicons to ensure inclusive terminology
• advocate for regional representation in steering committees
• create a congress checklist to evaluate equity, diversity, and inclusion representation in medical meetings
• hold pharma companies accountable for diverse authorship selection.

 The expanding role of social media

Participants supported broader use of social media but stressed the need for clear, industry-wide guidelines on best practices and regulatory considerations.

Participants supported broader use of social media but stressed the need for clear, industry-wide guidelines on best practices and regulatory considerations.

Eline Hanekamp, co-author of the GPP 2022 guidelines, closed the session by emphasising the growing role of AI, the importance of patient involvement, and the evolution of publication metrics. The insights gathered at the Hackathon activity will be presented to the GPP steering committee for consideration when developing the next iteration of GPP.

Finding the story in data: blending data visualisation, storytelling techniques, and new trends while still upholding core values in medical publications (sponsored and presented by HCG)

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Effective storytelling and visualisation techniques enhance data comprehension, making complex information more accessible while maintaining scientific integrity and core values.

Tobias Sturt (Add Two Digital) delivered an insightful talk on the role of storytelling and data visualisation in effectively communicating complex information. The session explored how narrative techniques and visual structure can enhance data interpretation, particularly in medical publications, while ensuring adherence to scientific rigour and ethical standards.

The importance of storytelling in data

Sturt emphasised that the volume and complexity of data in the medical and scientific fields are increasing rapidly. Effective storytelling helps cut through this noise, making information more impactful, understandable, and retainable. Visual storytelling is not about manipulating data but about framing it in a way that clarifies meaning while upholding credibility and trust.

Additionally, he noted that while numbers alone present facts, they often fail to engage audiences. A well-structured story provides context, improving relatability and retention of information. This is particularly critical in medical publications, where complex data must be clearly communicated to diverse audiences.

Principles of data storytelling and visualisation

Understanding the audience’s background and expectations is crucial. Data should be structured like a narrative, focusing on key insights to prevent information overload.

Understanding the audience’s background and expectations is crucial. Data should be structured like a narrative, focusing on key insights to prevent information overload. Selection and emphasis ensure that only the most relevant findings are highlighted. While data itself is factual, effective communication evokes emotions that make information more memorable. Using visual structuring techniques such as contrast, positioning, and colour helps guide the viewer’s attention, ensuring clarity and engagement.

Sturt also stressed the need for progressive disclosure—gradually introducing layers of information rather than presenting everything at once. This allows readers to build understanding step by step, making even highly complex data sets more digestible. Balancing simplicity and depth is key to effective storytelling.

The process: find, design, make, refine

Sturt introduced a four-step methodology for data storytelling:

1. Find – identify the core message within the data.
2. Design – develop a visual framework to present the story effectively.
3. Make – create the actual data visualisation.
4. Refine – test and iterate to improve clarity and impact.

This process ensures that visual storytelling remains purposeful and effective, avoiding the common pitfall of overloading graphics with unnecessary elements that detract from the main message.

Applying visual storytelling in medical publications

Sturt concluded with practical applications for medical and scientific publications, highlighting the importance of maintaining core values such as transparency, accuracy, and ethical responsibility. He discussed ways to ensure clarity in figures and graphs, use infographics to summarise key findings, and adapt storytelling techniques to align with evolving publication formats while preserving scientific rigour.

He also emphasised the role of emerging technologies, such as interactive visualisations and digital platforms, in modern medical publishing. These tools offer new ways to engage readers and convey complex findings dynamically while maintaining the credibility that medical communication demands.

The power of data-driven storytelling

Combining storytelling with data visualisation makes complex medical data clearer and more engaging. Aligning these techniques with ethical standards maintains credibility. As data visualisation evolves, leveraging new storytelling methods while staying true to core values will be essential for enhancing the impact of medical communications.

Want to catch up on events from Day 2 of the meeting? You can read our summaries here.

——————————————————–

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

——————————————————–

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

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

Publisher perspectives on AI: Empowering medical writers for the future

KEY TAKEAWAYS

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

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

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

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

Generative AI publishing policies

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

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

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

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

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

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

The JAMA perspective

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Lancet perspective

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

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

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

AI tools to enhance publishing processes

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

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

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

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

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

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

A clinician’s perspective

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Closing remarks

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

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

——————————————————–

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

——————————————————–

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

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

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

KEY TAKEAWAYS

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

The road ahead

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

Clear guidance is essential when embarking on an RWE journey.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What to include in your manuscript: the experts’ view

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

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

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

Specifically, submitting authors should:

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

Pre-registration

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

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

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

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

The home run

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

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

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

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

KEY TAKEAWAYS

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

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

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

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

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

The multifaceted role of the medical translator

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

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

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

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

Traversing complex workflows for accurate and compliant translation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————–

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

——————————————————–