Dublin, Aug. 08, 2018 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The “The Corporate Reputation of Pharma Companies, 2017 – The Patient Perspective of 262 Cancer Patient Groups – Cancer Edition” report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com’s offering.
The big theme of this report is how cancer patient groups vary in their perspectives on pharma (and its activities).
The researcher is pleased to publish the results of the 2017 (6th) edition of The Corporate Reputation of Pharma-from the Perspective of Cancer Patient Groups’.
The report highlights the differing perspectives of the various types of cancer patient groups, including:
- The entire respondent body of 262 cancer patient groups. This category represents the average view of cancer patient groups.
- Umbrella cancer patient groups, and cancer patient groups that concentrate on all types of cancer.
- Patient groups that specialise in blood cancers.
- Patient groups that specialise in breast cancer. And…
- Patient groups that specialise in prostate cancer.
To begin with, cancer patient groups take a very different view of the corporate reputation of the pharma industry, according to the variant of cancer in which they specialise. As the chart below shows, cancer patient groups that specialise in bowel cancers take a more positive view of the pharma industry’s corporate reputation than patient groups specialising in other forms of cancer – with 70% of bowel-cancer patient groups stating that the industry had an Excellent or Good corporate reputation in 2017. At the other – pessimistic – end of the scale are umbrella cancer patient groups and cancer patient groups with a remit to cover all types of cancer; just 38.1% of these stated that the pharma industry had an Excellent or Good corporate reputation in 2017.
The companies’ ability to create (or fail to create) high-quality products would seem to be the main driver for the divergent views towards pharma’s overall corporate reputation among the different categories of cancer patient groups. A comparison of the pattern of differentiation in charts 1 and 2 shows that the variation in attitudes of the different types of cancer patient groups to the industry’s competence at making high-quality products seems to loosely match their assessment of pharma’s corporate reputation as a whole.
By looking at the comments from 2017’s respondent cancer patient groups, further differences can be found among the cancer patient groups, such as:
- Geographic inequities, including a failure to conduct clinical trials in particular geographic locations. Or, again, an inability to adapt to different geographic healthcare systems, cultures, and patient perspectives (for instance, the provision of patient information in local languages). And a lack of local management interest in issues of patient centricity.
- In addition, some cancer patient groups felt disenfranchised by pharma’s lack of interest in their particular cancer subject area. A significant number of children’s-cancers patient groups mentioned the issue. For instance: an international children’s-cancers patient group from Italy wrote … Progress is being made for everyone, except children In the 36 years of our association, no pharmaceutical company has ever contacted us directly. We grant contracts to doctors and to biologists, we fund research, we train volunteers, we provide high-level care and assistance, but we have never been contacted.
However, cancer patient groups also proposed some solutions to help tackle these underlying problems.
- First, and foremost, some cancer patient groups argued for greater consensus building, not only between pharma and patient groups, but also with other healthcare stakeholders – even politicians, according to the Leukmiehilfe Rhein-Main e.v., a German blood-cancers patient group, which wrote: Convene regular round tables (meetings) with multidisciplinary participants. You need everyone involved to be sitting at one table – including politicians – in order to gear projects towards patients, and achieve results. And an international cancer patient group from the United Kingdom wrote: Patients and industry have a shared interest in showing that products work. So, we need to work to a shared and agreed approach. The patient group specifically referred to shared agreements on real-world data, and a shift toward real-people’ clinical trials.
- Another way forward, called for by many cancer patient groups, is greater feedback – for example, about new drug developments, and clinical trials.
Furthermore, cancer patient groups noted that
- Products need to be tailored to minimise side effects, and to improve patients’ quality of life.
- Patient information needs to be more comprehensible to ordinary patients. Similarly, contracts addressing, say, patient inclusion in clinical trials, should be less legalistic in terminology.
- Clinical trials – particularly for the treatments of rare cancers – should include children.
Which individual companies topped the corporate-reputation rankings among cancer patient groups in 2017?
Individual pharma companies will find that their rankings at the 12 indicators of corporate reputation varied significantly, according to the type of cancer patient group assessing them. Three other factors may bring a bearing on company rankings:
- The cancer specialty of the company (or whether the company runs a diversified cancer portfolio).
- Whether the company is experienced or new to the field of cancer. And…
- Whether the company has increased or reduced its investment in all or some aspects of oncological medicine.
Whatever the reason, it is striking how much influence the varying nature of cancer patient-group specialties has on individual company rankings at corporate reputation. Nevertheless, three companies dominate the top ranks for corporate reputation in cancer: Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer.
Who came first?
- Novartis was ranked overall 1st out of 30 companies by the 262 cancer patient groups that participated in the survey.
- Pfizer was ranked 1st out of 19 companies, according to the 67 patient groups that focused on all types of cancer.
- Janssen was ranked 1st out of 12 companies, according to the 39 patient groups that focused on blood cancers.
- Pfizer was ranked 1st out of 13 companies, according to the 42 patient groups that focused on breast cancer.
- Janssen was ranked 1st out of 7 companies, according to the 31 patient groups that focused on prostate cancer.
Key Topics Covered:
- Executive Summary
- Performance At Corporate Reputation Of Individual Pharma Companies, 2017
- As Assessed By Cancer Patient Groups Familiar With The Companies, And Of Varying Cancer Specialties
- Cancer Patient-Group Relationships With Pharma Companies, 2017
- Industry-Wide Findings Among Cancer Patient Groups, 2017
- Rankings Of The 30 Pharma Companies, 2017 V. 2016
- Among Cancer Patient Groups Familiar With The Companies
- Positionings Of 23 Pharma Companies, 2017 V. 2016
- Among Cancer Patient Groups That Work/Partner With The Companies
- Profiles Of The 30 Companies, 2017
I. Cancer Patient Groups: Views On Pharma; And Recommendations For Improvement
II. Profiles Of Respondent Cancer Patient Groups, 2017
- Boehringer I.
- Bristol-Myers Squibb
- Eli Lilly
- Leo Pharma
- Merck & Co
- Merck Kgaa
- Pierre Fabre
For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/jfsbh9/corporate?w=12
Did you know that we also offer Custom Research? Visit our Custom Research page to learn more and schedule a meeting with our Custom Research Manager.
CONTACT: CONTACT: ResearchAndMarkets.com Laura Wood, Senior Manager [email protected] For E.S.T Office Hours Call 1-917-300-0470 For U.S./CAN Toll Free Call 1-800-526-8630 For GMT Office Hours Call +353-1-416-8900 Related Topics: Pharmaceuticals
Latest posts by Nasdaq NewsFeed (see all)
- India Structured Cabling Market Forecast 2018-2024: Market is Projected to Grow at a CAGR of 7.5% - January 16, 2019
- Global Allergic Rhinitis Drugs Market to 2023: New Therapies is Expected to Drive Growth in the Market - January 16, 2019
- Global Shrimp Feed Market Report 2019-2023 Featuring Leading Players – Avanti Feeds, BioMar, Charoen Pokphand Foods, Neovia, and Nutreco - January 16, 2019