New research on rules of engagement with doctors
pharmafile | October 7, 2010 | Feature | Medical Communications | Doctors.net.uk, digital, doctors.net
For doctors, the next 12 months will not only bring financial pressure and a raft of new health policies, it also heralds the brave new world of GP-led commissioning. Naturally, many GPs fear it will further drain valuable ‘patient time’.
At the same time, doctors are being bombarded with communications from industry, charities, and government departments, as they recognise the value of communicating directly with GPs, whether it’s to drive sales, improve awareness, or to meet targets. With all of their conflicting demands, GPs have rarely been more time-pressured.
In such situations, our survival instinct drives us to steer a clear path through obstacles and focus on what’s really important. Today, we see exactly this response in GPs as they filter out those sources of information that are peripheral and hinder them in achieving their professional aims. In the current environment, it comes as little surprise that doctors are increasingly selective about their preferred channels and sources for trusted information.
The danger of this filtering is that doctors also bypass data that is beneficial to their professional practice and their patients – groundbreaking treatments, product and medical advancements, significant news and research. With no single central channel existing to disseminate such information, the onus is on the GP to keep abreast of advancements – an expectation that, of course, comes with no time allowance.
So, how can organisations find an appropriate way to ensure that their information is not bypassed by time-pressured GPs?
Communication black holes
As part of its ongoing commitment to understanding and supporting GPs’ attitudes and needs, Doctors.net.uk used its monthly omnibus service* to benchmark current opinion on information sources. The results expose some real communication black holes for the healthcare sector and highlight the need for innovation around engagement with GPs.
The danger is to assume that doctors are driven by the media and national concerns. Yet results imply regularly that matters affecting the GP’s professional life far outweigh the wider public or media’s agenda. This is where we tend to see a real disconnect between GPs and those attempting to engage with them. Little if any effort is made to empathise and tailor communications accordingly.
Drilling down to determine the usefulness of online resources, it came as little surprise that those providing hard facts and supporting GPs’ main areas of concern topped the results, with more than three quarters (79%) citing accredited CME modules as useful.
Just under half (42%) of GPs quoting online reference text books and almost a third (31%) databases, the benefit of the internet in enabling speedy and effective diagnosis and treatment of patients is also clear.
However, whilst time is an issue here, when it comes to resource usage, more detailed examination raises a prominent question mark over the issue of trust and the impact that source credibility has on GP communications. With peer-reviewed sources such as medical publishers and journals, along with Doctors.net.uk (an independent professional network for doctors) identified as most trusted, the findings highlight the GP’s tendency to trust more independent sources of information.
Doctors.net.uk’s inclusion as a ‘most trusted’ source should offer encouragement that it is possible to instil a sense of trust and credibility with non-traditional sources of communication. However, it should be realised that this credibility is borne out of the network’s independence and empathy and appreciation of the GP’s professional life, attitude, constraints and needs. The pharmaceutical industry in particular is shown to be lacking in credibility with a nominal three per cent of doctors naming it as a trusted source of information – a sentiment that is further reflected in the low frequency of visits by GPs to pharmaceutical websites. Some five out of six (82%) claim to visit them less than once a month and just under half (42%) never. These are staggering figures when you consider 93% of GPs have access to broadband at home and cite professional search as its main benefit.
All is not lost, though. Doctors do recognise the need for such information yet their preferred channels remain with trusted online sources (58%) and face-to-face in the form of local meetings (46%) or reps (41%). With their products playing an implicit role in GP life, it’s vital that companies address this issue in a bid to open dialogue and build credibility.
The overarching message is loud and clear: while content control should rightly remain with the pharmaceutical brands, the industry must embrace the benefits of adopting an independent and trusted channel if it wants to ensure a healthy level of GP engagement.
The research proves that the internet is a key channel of information for GPs and there is great opportunity to harness its potential – but pharmaceutical companies are lagging behind and missing a huge opportunity to engage effectively. The format and channel issues should be simple to resolve but the issues of credibility and relevance will require a little more inward thought.
*Survey of 1,000 practising GPs in November 2009 by medeConnect on behalf of Doctors.net.uk
Dr Tim Ringrose is the medical director for Doctors.net.uk
Related Content
Virtual Inspections: Embracing the Digital Change
Virtual inspections must become a part of companies’ repertoires if they aim to maintain quality …
COVID-19 is pushing healthcare firms to embrace digital transformation, reports suggest
The COVID-19 pandemic forced industries across the board to evolve or die with regard to …
Government appoints health minister from firm trying to win NHS contracts
The British Government has come under fire over the appointment of former Tory MP, Nicola …
