Consumer health: why do we need to promote to HCPs for product adoption?

HCPs hold significant sway over healthcare decisions, but in recent years there has been a noticeable shift towards shared decision-making between HCPs and consumers, fostering a more patient-centric approach. Today, effective communication from industry to HCPs regarding the adoption of consumer health products is essential, given research indicating that consumers are assuming greater responsibility for decision-making and self-care in managing their health.^1,2 Patients often inherently trust the judgement of their HCPs in treatment decisions. In the UK and US, surveys demonstrated that 84% of the public trusted their doctors.^3,4Additionally, a large body of research from America concluded that, despite the public’s trust in the pharmaceutical industry significantly decreasing over the years, trust in their physicians’ integrity remained high, with more than two thirds of the public rating the honesty and ethical standards of physicians as ‘very high’ or ‘high’.⁵ Therefore, sharing promotional and educational information with HCPs could synergistically amplify consumer adoption, through HCPs’ ability to enhance trust in a product amongst their patients.

The endorsement of HCPs carries substantial weight in influencing consumer product adoption. In a recent IQVIA Consumer Health survey on dermocosmetics (skincare with dermatologically active ingredients that treat skin condition symptoms),⁶ almost 90% of respondents said a recommendation from a HCP had a high or moderate impact on their purchasing decision.⁷ Moreover, the movement of shared decision-making has been catalysed by clinical judgement infiltrating consumerism, with many mainstream brands recognising the value of HCP backing in promoting their products. For instance, the sportswear brand Asics has collaborated with Sports Medicine Australia to develop footwear recognised as ‘medically beneficial’, while HiSmile, a teeth whitening brand, label their products as ‘Dentist-backed’ and emphasises their ‘expert-level performance’.^8,9 Given the enormity of influence HCPs have on consumer decision-making, clinical consumer brands failing to influence HCPs could be left with managing negative consequences in both sales and patient outcomes. Moulding promotional strategies to adapt to the modern-day shift to shared decision-making could lead to a greater adoption of novel healthcare products, helping to work towards the ultimate goal of improving patient outcomes.

Current communication issues in product promotion to HCPs

Whilst it is commonly assumed that HCPs refer to medical literature when informing themselves on novel drugs, new drug adoption among GPs may in fact be determined more by promotional than professional information; with no significant relation observed between the use of scientific medical journals and new drug uptake.¹⁰  Moreover, research has demonstrated that one of the greatest reasons for US primary care physicians (PCPs) accessing product services was to share the services with patients;¹¹ demonstrative of the importance of promotional material aimed at HCPs in increasing adoption among their patients.

The manner in which promotional material is communicated to HCPs can both prevent or increase the likelihood of adoption. A number of studies have suggested that HCPs’ previous experience and knowledge of using new treatments increased their use,^12–16 whereas lack of knowledge and confidence delayed or prevented use.^13,17Additionally, because the opinion of HCPs is so significant in influencing consumer health, they can understandably feel overloaded with product promotion and feel the weight of their opinion; with some HCPs stating that the overwhelming amount of information for new treatments discouraged their use.¹²

With a growing prevalence of HCPs experiencing burnout following the pandemic,¹⁸ the methods of communication must be adapted to meet their needs. We must ensure that we, as healthcare communicators, respect HCPs’ time to enhance the effectiveness of promotion and education. Furthermore, today, accessibility and convenience reign supreme, and anything less just doesn’t seem to cut it. Over the past few decades many brands have gained huge popularity by bringing greater efficiency to everyday life – Amazon has reshaped the e-commerce landscape, while Uber has revolutionised transportation with the tap of a button. Additionally, food delivery services like Deliveroo have soared in popularity, offering the convenience of having groceries and takeaways brought directly to your doorstep. This approach can also be applied to healthcare communication, tailoring promotional content to ensure maximum convenience for HCPs. It is crucial to acknowledge that simply taking more of their time will not necessarily increase the likelihood of their adoption of novel products.¹² Instead, we should focus on enhancing the efficiency of our promotional material to accommodate to HCPs’ hectic schedules.

Another obstacle in product adoption is a phenomenon known as ‘clinical inertia’, which is characterised HCPs’ reluctance to initiate or escalate therapy when therapeutic goals aren’t reached; this issue further hampers the adoption of new treatments.¹⁹ Lack of awareness of evidence-based goals of care or a lack of familiarity with guidelines has been reported as a major contributor to clinical inertia.^20,21 This can be attributed to the large number of guidelines and the time required to maintain awareness of their implications.²² This emphasises the crucial role of communicators in ensuring that promotional material is not only delivered in a convenient and concise manner, but that it is also informative, given that lack of information on a product can delay or even prevent HCPs in utilising it.^13,17

How do we deliver compelling promotional information to HCPs?

In a recent US study surveying over 1,000 PCPs, 70% said they would prescribe a product to a patient after accessing quality product information during a patient consultation.¹¹ This underscores the significant impact that compelling, impactful product information can have in increasing adoption. Therefore, improving the current methods of communicating promotional information to HPCs can heighten their engagement, thereby amplifying the probability of adopting new products.

Marketing should be to the point and only include the relevant information to steer clear of overwhelming HCPS. Avoiding unnecessary content ensures the product’s value remains clear, enhancing communication efficiency and increasing the likelihood of engaging healthcare professionals.

Convenience is paramount for HCPs due to their heavy workloads, with research demonstrating that the majority of PCPs in the US hold the ease of finding content as the most important attribute when accessing information.¹¹ By delivering promotional material directly to them, utilising a multi-channel approach, engagement can be significantly boosted. This strategy accommodates their busy schedules, making it easier for HCPs to access and engage with the material and subsequently communicate it to their patients.

Promotional material must balance convenience and conciseness with informative content, showcasing clinical evidence of the product’s efficacy. HCPs require confidence in a product’s abilities before they offer it as a treatment option. Lack of information surrounding the product will decrease the likelihood of adoption.¹²

Effective communication with HCPs is not just a matter of transmitting information; it is the cornerstone of successful product adoption and ultimately improved patient care. Considering the trends towards shared decision-making in routine clinical practice, neglecting this dynamic could impede sales and forfeit changes that could enhance patient well-being. The communication goal isn’t necessarily to do more, but to better what we already do to enhance its quality and effectiveness to maximise its impact. The prosperity and growth of consumer health brands hinge on effectively marketing products to both HCPs and consumers, not solely for commercial gains, but to ultimately strive for better patient outcomes.

References

1. Petrakaki D, Hilberg E, Waring J. Between empowerment and self-discipline: governing patients’ conduct through technological self-care. Soc Sci Med. 2018 Sep;213:146–53. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.07.043. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0277-9536(18)30410-6.S0277-9536(18)30410-6
2. Sharma AE, Rivadeneira NA, Barr-Walker J, Stern RJ, Johnson AK, Sarkar U. Patient engagement in health care safety: an overview of mixed-quality evidence. Health Aff (Millwood) 2018 Nov;37(11):1813–20. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.0716.
3. Nuffield Trust. Patient experience: do patients have confidence and trust in clinicians? [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2024 Mar 25]. Available from:https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/resource/confidence-and-trust-in-clinicians#:~:text=In%202020%2C%2084%25%20of%20respondents
4. Surveys of Trust in the U.S. Health Care System [Internet]. NORC. ABIM Foundation; 2021 [cited 2024 Mar 25]. Available from: https://www.norc.org/content/dam/norc-org/pdfs/20210520_NORC_ABIM_Foundation_Trust%20in%20Healthcare_Part%201.pdf
5. Blendon, Robert J.; Benson, John M.; Hero, Joachim O. (2014). Public Trust in Physicians — U.S. Medicine in International Perspective. New England Journal of Medicine, 371(17), 1570–1572. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1407373
6. Kurokawa I, Kobayashi M, Nomura Y. The Role and Benefits of Dermocosmetics in Acne Management in Japan. Dermatology and Therapy [Internet]. 2023 Jun 20;13(7):1423–33. [cited 2024 Mar 26]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10307753/
7. Rethinking Consumer Health HCP Engagement [Internet]. www.iqvia.com. 2022 [cited 2024 Mar 26]. Available from: https://www.iqvia.com/blogs/2022/07/rethinking-consumer-health-hcp-engagement
8. Martin E, Pourtau L, Di Palma M, Delaloge S. New oral targeted therapies for metastatic breast cancer disrupt the traditional patients’ management—a healthcare providers’ view. Eur J Cancer Care. 2017;26(6):e12624–e12633. doi: 10.1111/ecc.12624.
9. http://www.asics.com/au/en-au/mk/asics-medical-partnerships [Internet]. www.asics.com. Available from: https://www.asics.com/au/en-au/mk/asics-medical-partnerships
10. Greving JP, Denig P, Van Der Veen WJ, Beltman FW, Sturkenboom MCJM, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM: Determinants for the adoption of angiotensin II receptor blockers by general practitioners. Soc Sci Med. 2006, 63: 2890-2898. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.07.019.
11. Swathi Rao, Kunal Kushwah, John Crowley. Taking The Pulse® U.S. 2022. Clarivate; 2022.
12. Huang C, Siu M, Vu L, Wong S, Shin J. Factors influencing doctors’ selection of dabigatran in non-valvular atrial fibrillation. J Eval Clin Pract. 2013;19(5):938–943. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2012.01886.x.
13. Martin E, Pourtau L, Di Palma M, Delaloge S. New oral targeted therapies for metastatic breast cancer disrupt the traditional patients’ management—a healthcare providers’ view. Eur J Cancer Care. 2017;26(6):e12624–e12633. doi: 10.1111/ecc.12624.
14. Netherland J, Botsko M, Egan JE, Saxon AJ, Cunnigham CO, Finkelstein R, Gourevitch MN, Renner JA, Sohler N, Sullivan LE, Weiss L, Fiellin DA. The BHIVES collaborative. Factors affecting willingness to provide buprenorphine treatment. J Subst Abus Treat. 2009;36(3):244–251. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2008.06.006.
15. Tobin L, Neto AA, Wutzke S, Patterson C. Influences on the prescribing of new drugs. Aust Fam Physician. 2008;37:78–81.
16. Zhang B, Song Y, Fu Y, Zhu B, Wang B, Wang J. Current status of the clinical use of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors: a questionnaire survey of oncologists in China. BMC Cancer. 2020;20(1):86. doi: 10.1186/s12885-020-6583-3.
17. Karampli E, Souliotis K, Polyzos N, Chatzaki E. Why do physicians prescribe new antidiabetic drugs? A qualitative study in the Greek healthcare setting. Health Policy and Technology. 2020;9(2):166–173. doi: 10.1016/j.hlpt.2020.02.007.
18. Morgantini LA, Naha U, Wang H. Factors Contributing to Healthcare Professional Burnout During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Rapid Turnaround Global Survey. 2020 May 22;
19. Cavazos JM, Naik AD, Woofter A, Abraham NS. Barriers to physician adherence to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug guidelines: a qualitative study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2008;28(6):789–798.
20. Byrnes PD. Why haven’t I changed that? Therapeutic inertia in general practice. Aust Fam Physician.2011;40(1–2):24–28.
21. Dang S, Sanchez A, Oropesa L, Roos BA, Florez H. Telehealth-assisted care coordination of older veterans with type 2 diabetes lowers coronary heart disease risk despite clinical inertia. Diabetes Technol Ther.2010;12(12):995–1001.
22. Wang TJ, Vasan RS. Epidemiology of uncontrolled hypertension in the United States. 2005;112(11):1651–1662.