Elevate Key Opinion Leader Relationships

$4,895.00

Elevate Key Opinion Leader Relationships: Analyzing Direct Thought Leader Feedback to Enrich MSL Interactions

Interaction with thought leaders is a crucial activity for the life sciences industry. Medical science liaisons (MSLs) are one of the major communication channels between life science companies and thought leaders. This study explores desired qualities for MSLs and changes that thought leaders would like to see to help increase the value of these interactions.

Additionally, the report features thought leaders’ unblinded company rankings so you can compare how external experts view MSL teams from Top 20 and Top 50 pharmaceutical companies.

Download Now! speak-to-an-expert

Key Opinion Leader Relationships Report Details

 

  • 3 chapters + an Executive Summary
  • 60+ graphics

The study presents data split by geographic region:

  • US
  • Europe/Canada
  • APAC
  • Latin America
  • MENA

The study also presents data split by therapeutic area:

  • Cardiology
  • Oncology
  • Genetics
  • Opthalmology

More Reasons to Buy Key Opinion Leader Relationships

 

The goal of MSLs is to offer the most value possible to thought leaders. Knowing what thought leaders find most important in these interactions can help MSLs add value and achieve company objectives. This report draws directly from KOL survey data as well as interviews with MSL executives to explore how to get the most out of key opinion leader relationships with MSLs. Three top reasons to buy this report are:

Determine what KOLs need from MSL interactions and how to maximize communication channels. The MSL’s goal is to serve as the go-to resource for HCPs while establishing a strong relationship and gathering information for the company. When interacting with thought leaders, MSLs must ensure that they provide them with the most valuable information possible — information that the thought leader is interested in and finds useful. The report discusses what MSLs consistently need to provide KOLs. It also showcases benchmarks on thought leaders’ preferred meeting specifics, such meeting length, frequency of communication and engagement platform.

Identify medical science liaisons’ ideal qualities and characteristics. The primary characteristics thought leaders find most valuable in MSLs include establishing credibility by providing the newest clinical data and published articles, education on competitors’ products and the competitive landscape. The report examines ideal MSL characteristics that lead to stronger key opinion leader relationships. Being aware of KOL perceptions can spur changes and improvements in MSL training and development.

Compare how KOLs view MSL teams from Top 20 and Top 50 companies. This report features unblinded rankings of top-ranking drug companies so that you can determine where different companies rank in the eyes of thought leaders. These data will help companies learn where they stand, where they may need to improve their overall MSL team performance, and what they may need to change about their key opinion leader relationships.

Excerpt from Elevate Key Opinion Leader Relationships

 

When MSLs interact with physicians and other KOLs, therapeutic area has an important effect on the goal of their interactions. In addition, the benefits that KOLs ideally want to derive from MSL interactions can vary significantly within different therapeutic areas. Figure 1.12 shows the percentage of surveyed HCPs reporting they receive certain benefits from MSL interactions.

  • For oncology and cardiology, the scientific exchange on a certain treatment is the most popular selection, with 80% and 82% of surveyed KOLs, respectively.
  • The most commonly seen benefits for KOLs in genetics is increased therapeutic area knowledge, with 72%.
  • For surveyed ophthalmology KOLs, the only benefit seen by more than half is clinical trial support.

Elevate Key Opinion Leader Relationships Table of Contents

 

6                          Executive Summary

7                          About This Report

15                        KOL Feedback: Key Recommendations for Success

19                       KOL Ratings of Companies’ MSL Teams and Strategies for Cultivating a Valuable Relationship

20                       Thought Leader Rankings of Companies’ MSL Teams

29                       Increasing MSL Team Rankings to Improve Thought Leader Opinions and Relationships

30                       Health Economics Field Forces: Resources and Personnel

37                       Changes Thought Leaders Want in Interactions with MSLs

45                       Challenges for MSL Teams

46                       Building the Ideal MSL

47                        Information MSLs Can Provide to Best Serve HCPs

56                      MSL Characteristics Crucial For Establishing and Strengthening Thought Leader Relationships

73                        Guidelines for Maximizing KOL–MSL Interactions

74                        KOL–MSL Interaction Methods

88                       Determining MSL–KOL Interaction Frequency

96                       Deciding the Length of Time Spent in KOL–MSL Meetings

 


Charts & Graphics

6 Executive Summary

7 About This Report

8 Figure E.1.i: Cutting Edge Information Research Methodology

10 Figure E.1.ii: Study Definitions: Key Opinion Leader Feedback

11 Figure E.1.iii: Study Definitions: Team Region

12 Figure E.1.iv: Study Definitions: Company Size

14 Figure E.1.v: Additional Study Information

15 KOL Feedback: Key Recommendations for Success

17 Figure E.2: Information KOLs Want from MSL to Improve Support: All Surveyed Thought Leaders

19 KOL Ratings of Companies’ MSL Teams and Strategies for Cultivating a Valuable Relationship

20 Thought Leader Rankings of Companies’ MSL Teams

21 Figure 1.1: Average KOL Ratings of MSL Teams from Specific Companies: Top 20

21 Figure 1.2: Average KOL Ratings of MSL Teams from Specific Companies: Top 50

22 Figure 1.3: Average KOL Ratings of MSL Teams from Specific Companies: Cardiology

23 Figure 1.4: Average KOL Ratings of MSL Teams from Specific Companies: Oncology

24 Figure 1.5: Average KOL Ratings of MSL Teams from Specific Companies: Genetics

25 Figure 1.6: Average KOL Ratings of MSL Teams from Specific Companies: Ophthalmology

26 Figure 1.7: Average KOL Ratings of MSL Teams from Specific Companies: Year 1

27 Figure 1.8: Average KOL Ratings of MSL Teams from Specific Companies:
Year 2

27 Figure 1.9: Average KOL Ratings of MSL Teams from Specific Companies:
Year 3

28 Figure 1.10: Average KOL Ratings of MSL Teams from Specific Companies: Year 4

29 Increasing MSL Team Rankings to Improve Thought Leader Opinions and Relationships

30 KOLs’ Perceived Benefits of MSL Interactions

31 Figure 1.11: Perceived Benefits of MSL Interactions: All Surveyed Thought Leaders

32 Figure 1.12: Perceived Benefits of MSL Interactions, by Therapeutic Area

34 Figure 1.13: Perceived Benefits of MSL Interactions, by Region

36 Figure 1.14: Perceived Benefits of MSL Interactions, by Year

37 Changes Thought Leaders Want in Interactions with MSLs

38 Figure 1.15: Desired Changes for MSL Interactions: All Surveyed Thought Leaders

40 Figure 1.16: Desired Changes for MSL Interactions, by Therapeutic Area

42 Figure 1.17: Desired Changes for MSL Interactions, by Region

43 Figure 1.18: Desired Changes for MSL Interactions, by Year

45 Challenges for MSL Teams

46 Building the Ideal MSL

47 Information MSLs Can Provide to Best Serve HCPs

48 Figure 2.1: Information KOLs Want from MSLs to Improve Support: All Surveyed Thought Leaders

50 Figure 2.2: Information KOLs Want from MSLs to Improve Support, by Therapeutic Area

52 Figure 2.3: Information KOLs Want from MSLs to Improve Support, by Region

54 Figure 2.4: Information KOLs Want from MSLs to Improve Support, by Year

56 MSL Characteristics Crucial For Establishing and Strengthening Thought Leader Relationships

58 Figure 2.5: Average Thought Leader Ratings for MSL Characteristics: All Surveyed Thought Leaders

60 Figure 2.6: Average KOL Ratings of Top 6 MSL Characteristics to Establish Relationships: Cardiology

60 Figure 2.7: Average KOL Ratings of Top 6 MSL Characteristics to Establish Relationships: Oncology

61 Figure 2.8: Average KOL Ratings of Top 6 MSL Characteristics to Establish Relationships: Ophthalmology

61 Figure 2.9: Average KOL Ratings of Top 6 MSL Characteristics to Establish Relationships: Genetics

63 Figure 2.10: Average Rating of Top 6 Overall MSL Characteristics to Establish Relationships, by Region

64 Figure 2.11: Average KOL Ratings of Top 6 MSL Characteristics to Establish Relationships: Year 1

65 Figure 2.12: Average KOL Ratings of Top 6 MSL Characteristics to Establish Relationships: Year 2

65 Figure 2.13: Average KOL Ratings of Top 6 MSL Characteristics to Establish Relationships: Year 3

66 Figure 2.14: Average KOL Ratings of Top 6 MSL Characteristics to Establish Relationships: Year 4

67 Figure 2.15: MSL Characteristics KOLs Believe Will Improve Their Relationships: All Surveyed Thought Leaders

69 Figure 2.16: MSL Characteristics KOLs Believe Will Improve Their Relationships, by Therapeutic Area

71 Figure 2.17: MSL Characteristics KOLs Believe Will Improve Their Relationships, by Region

73 Guidelines for Maximizing KOL–MSL Interactions

74 Figure 3.1: Types of MSL Interactions Preferred by KOLs: All Surveyed Thought Leaders

74 KOL–MSL Interaction Methods

76 Figure 3.2: Types of MSL Interactions Preferred by KOLs, by Therapeutic Area

76 Figure 3.3: Types of MSL Interactions Preferred by KOLs, by Region

77 Figure 3.4: Types of MSL Interactions Preferred by KOLs, by Year

78 Figure 3.5: KOL Impressions of New Engagement Platforms: All Surveyed Thought Leaders

79 Figure 3.6: KOL Impressions of New Engagement Platforms, by Therapeutic Area

80 Figure 3.7: KOL Impressions of New Engagement Platforms, by Region

82 Figure 3.8: Percentage of KOLs Who Believe New Engagement Platforms Will Replace Face-to-Face Interactions

83 Figure 3.9: Percentage of KOLs Who Believe New Engagement Platforms Will Not Replace Face-to- Face Interactions

84 Figure 3.10: Percentage of KOLs Who Believe New Engagement Platforms Will Replace Face-to- Face Meetings, by Therapeutic Area

85 Figure 3.11: Percentage of KOLs Who Believe New Engagement Platforms Will Replace Face-to- Face Meetings, by Region

85 Figure 3.12: Percentage of KOLs Who Believe New Engagement Platforms Will Replace Face-to- Face Meetings, by Year

88 Determining MSL–KOL Interaction Frequency

90 Figure 3.13: KOLs’ Actual and Preferred MSL Interaction Frequency: All Surveyed Thought Leaders

90 Figure 3.14: Comparing KOLs’ Actual and Preferred Interaction Frequency

91 Figure 3.15: KOLs’ Preference on MSL Interaction Frequency, by Therapeutic Area

92 Figure 3.16: KOLs’ Preference on MSL Interaction Frequency, by Region

93 Figure 3.17: KOLs’ Preference on MSL Interaction Frequency, by Year

96 Figure 3.18: KOLs’ Preferred and Actual MSL Interaction Length: All Surveyed Thought Leaders

96 Deciding the Length of Time Spent in KOL–MSL Meetings

97 Figure 3.19: KOLs’ Preference on MSL Interaction Length, by Therapeutic Area

98 Figure 3.20: KOLs’ Preference of MSL Interaction Length, by Region

98 Figure 3.21: KOLs’ Preference on MSL Interaction Length, by Year

99 Figure 3.22: Average Time Difference Between Preferred and Actual Interaction Time, by Therapeutic Area

100 Figure 3.23: Average Time Difference Between Preferred and Actual MSL Interaction Time, by Region

100 Figure 3.24: Average Time Difference Between Preferred and Actual MSL Interaction Time, by Year