Social media – what lies beneath?

It’s the inaugural #hcsmeu camp in Berlin next week which I am attending on behalf of Galliard.

As a company we’re very interested to see how the social media (SM) arena pans out for healthcare, as are most of our clients. We can see the benefits of communicating online (speed and immediacy, interaction, feedback to name but a few), and we’ve already been there with a few campaigns but we can’t help feel there is increasing need for more (or even some) direction and rules for engagement for the pharmaceutical industry as SM gathers pace.

We are of course all learning all the time and as an agency focused for 10 years on communicating science, Galliard is in a good position to offer advice on the integration of digital media into scientific and medical communication campaigns, whilst remaining within the current rules of operation.

What we currently do not have as an industry are any guidelines specific to SM either at a European or a UK level. Guidance for pharmaceutical campaigns that involve consumer interaction is still being kept at arms length.  

Back in November 2009, the FDA invited comment from pharma and associated companies and is being urged by contributors to publish new guidance and rules for online marketing.  Novartis is the most recent company to submit their thoughts to the FDA (link to pdf courtesy of John Mack @pharmaguy). 

There have also been calls on twitter for the FDA to leap into action to help develop tools for companies to enable online communications – FDA specific shortened links for use in blogs and on twitter that could link to drug safety information, or FDA hashtag #fda to show that content has been FDA approved are two suggestions. Whilst this would certainly provide clarity for US-based communications, what about the EMA in Europe? Would our European regulators feel compelled to follow suit I wonder? How would this be acheived?

Heather Simmonds from the ABPI told the congregated audience (and indirectly all of us following the conference on twitter) at the recent eyeforpharma (search for #efp on twitter) congress that there would be no new SM guidelines from the ABPI in the near future, but that existing communication guidelines should be followed, with individual requests regarding uncertainties of online communication sent to the ABPI directly.  Heather did update us that the ABPI would be producing a list of commonly asked SM Q&As.

There are increasing numbers of industry and agency teams looking to enter the water, but I wouldn’t say that any of us is diving in head first, but more dipping our toes in the water hoping that it isn’t too cold and that there is nothing nasty lurking under the surface before we do. The interactive sessions at #hcsmeu camp will, I’m sure, make things a little clearer and we will watch this discussion with interest.

For more information on #hcsmeu, join the weekly tweetups, or visit http://www.hcsmeu.com

Too much of a good thing?

Is the recent health warning issued by the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) regarding the ‘super-sizing’ of cinema snacks just another example of a ‘nanny state’ or do we need this sort of guidance as we can’t say ‘no’ to excess?

Whilst this may make you think twice about ordering your large bucket of snacks at the pictures, are we also being fed much of a good thing when it comes to information on the internet?  Are we in the grip of a ‘supersized’ information highway and are we consuming too much when it comes to social networks on the web?

I was recently reminded of an article in Newsweek in 1995 that cited the reasons ‘why the internet will fail’ - claiming the internet would not replace books and newspapers – who would have thought that by 2009 some 18.3 million households in the UK would have internet access.

And a new article on CNN reports on data by the Pew Internet and American Life Project showing that more Americans get their news from the internet than from newspapers or radio, with three-quarters of people receiving news via e-mails or from social media sites.

Using the internet is ingrained in many, if not all, aspects of our lives – where would we be without internet banking and Amazon for example. Interestingly, in healthcare this is leading to some doctors being concerned about internet-informed patients (new research by North London GP Dr Sanjiv Ahluwalia published in the February edition of the British Journal of General Practice) – but the general message seems to be ‘don’t dismiss web-wise patients’. But surely I am not the only person who, at times, finds the sheer volume and potential monotony of information on the web a little overwhelming? 

And taking this further, a recent study by physiologists at Leeds University published in the journal Psychopathology claimed a link between heavy internet use and depression.  Now, whilst replacing real life social interaction with social networking sites and online chat rooms may be considered a little extreme, I’m sure you know someone who is ‘inseparable’ from their iPhone or favourite Apps?

Is it healthy or helpful to conduct so many conversations online?  In our business of healthcare communications we deal with relationships, and healthy relationships are based on trust and understanding.  Are we at risk of getting carried away with the hyperbole of digital and social media?  Sometimes a face to face or telephone meeting, where non-verbal communication adds depth to a conversation and the tone and inflection of the voice can be judged, are the best way forward.

I don’t refute that the internet has allowed me to view incredible photos, share memorable experiences and receive up to the minute information that I would otherwise not have access to, and this is only to be applauded. 

But just because we can use technology, doesn’t mean we always should. Like just because we can buy our own body weight in popcorn, it’s probably best that we don’t! When it comes to virtual information, perhaps now and again we should remember that ‘it’s the quality not the quantity that matters’.

Who Can Fix the Health of the Nation?

With the general election looming and the 2 major parties neck and neck in the public opinion polls (telegraph.co.uk) the approach to healthcare reform may be crucial in determining if the Browns will need the services of a removal van come what May.

The state of the NHS has always featured prominently in the UK media and this trend has continued over the recent months with damning reports of the organisation’s management structure (guardian.co.uk); the prioritisation of targets over patient care; (telegraph.co.uk) and the permanently ticking (and sometimes exploding) time bomb of postcode prescribing.

Gordon Brown has put his stake firmly in the ground – “The NHS is the Labour Party’s greatest achievement. We created it, we saved it, we value it and we will always support it”. All true – and in their manifesto they paint a rosy picture documenting numerous achievements in the past 13 years – but the NHS is far from perfect and the proposed policies still focus on targets and not the patient as an individual. Is this really what the country needs?

But what of the blue side? David Cameron has clearly stated that the NHS is now ‘a’ if not ‘the’ key priority for the conservative party. In a nutshell they plan on returning the power and decision making to the people by decentralizing the system . It is all about accountability, transparency and driving up standards – excellent idea but how are they going to achieve this? Very few tangible solutions are given with the exception of emotive phrases such as improving cancer survival rates – does this mean they are going to change the policies and remit of NICE and allow patients to receive the newer generation of drugs that are currently too expensive to prescribe? Will they initiate mass screening programmes that have seen great success in other European countries? Like Labour, no clear action plan is defined leaving the voters none the wiser on a red hot topic.

In the coming weeks this will be a major focus for both parties as they try to win the hearts of the undecided and unconvinced. Will Labour continue to focus on steady progress? Will the Tories go beyond simply setting out their vision for change? What happens if there is a hung parliament which many experts are now predicting?  How might this affect the NHS? And finally with so much focus on economic recovery and a reduction in the national debt, is there a danger that the NHS will be overlooked as a key issue? – We watch with interest.

Once upon a time…

Stories have been at the heart of our evolution since the very beginning of human communication.

Stories form the foundation of religion, politics, law, film, poetry, language, history, science, war, commerce and creativity.

Stories are designed to inspire, illuminate, bring wisdom, solace, joy, revolution, reflection and understanding.

Given this powerful and enduring influence on our lives, why do so many healthcare and pharma brands shy away from the power of the story when developing their communications strategies?

Isn’t it our job as communicators to create an emotional response?

To create stories that can be retold by the listener and allow the audience to shape, comment, get involved, develop the narrative and add their own meaning.

We are able to tell stories that unite people around a common cause; help them take the decision to purchase or boycott a product or service, to believe in a message, to enlighten and educate, entertain and excite.

As communicators we can use dramatic structure to captivate audiences and engage them in a way that is meaningful, lasting and mutually beneficial.

But how do we uncover the dramatic stories within our organisations and around our products and services?

Where can we add the emotive to the educational, rational or informational?

Who are our heroes and villains?

It’s not just about the story though, but also about how well it is told.

What will we use to engage the audience within the story? (Photography, tone of voice, cinematography, transitions, sounds, color, brand identity)

How does the audience move through the experience we’ve created?

What metaphors will we develop to help guide the audience?

What obstacles or objectives need to be moved or met? (Business, financial, economic, personal, community)

Is the destination better than the starting point ?

The art of Storytelling is all around us. From the way we dress to the music we listen to.

Everything, and everyone, has their own unique story.

These communal experiences give us insight into who we are as individuals, communities, companies, products, and cultures.

Which stories will be remembered the longest?

Which stories will be loved the most?

Which stories will “succeed?”

For stories to succeed they have to be interesting. That means creating great content.

For stories to succeed, they have to be told in the language of the audience.

And, for stories to succeed, they have to be told in an authentic way by great storytellers.

We have the opportunity to bring the inherently dramatic and emotional subjects within healthcare – saving lives and treating disease – to life.

But is the industry ready to take on these subjects in a way that has storytelling at its heart?

Is it ready to embrace the wide range of communications channels and tools, both old and new at our disposal?

I guess that’s another story…

The vision for a commercial UK national health service?

A short piece in Nursing Times contains some important data for those planning the future of the NHS.  It suggests that care improves in hospitals that are competing with nearby health trusts. One improvement measure translated into 400 fewer heart attacks every year across the sample of 61% of hospitals in England. Reductions in events quoted in their 100s are not to be sniffed at.

This research from the London School of Economics Centre for Economic Performance (LSE CEP)  also showed that competition between NHS trusts, especially in areas where there was a high concentration of hospitals, was linked to strong NHS management.  A consequence was also improved communication between medical staff and nurses in those competing trusts which may have been the catalyst to the improved care or may have been a consequence of the market forces leading to better management.

In summary, introducing market forces into the NHS led to competition for patient numbers, for jobs and for services and a subsequent improvement in patient outcomes.  The question I would ask therefore is should the competition be opened up across the whole of the NHS; or should the NHS remain as independent from market forces as it can be? 

The NHS was formed in 1948 by a post-war Government following the publication of the Beveridge report. The introduction was led by the health minister Nye Bevan, who bribed the medical profession of the time with the licence to work in the health service while maintaining lucrative private practice, as the majority of medical consultants were opposed to its introduction. Ref, BBC HistoryIt was set up with the premise to provide access to equal quality care for the entire population.  Currently this is not the case with divisions in access and funding between Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales, and of course now infamous postcode prescribing.  Despite this criticism, we also would arguably not have the level of access to medicines, nationwide vaccination programmes, or cancer screening programmes if it weren’t for the NHS.

I look forward to the forthcoming LSE CEP Discussion Paper ‘The Impact of Competition on Management Practices in Public Health’ (Bloom, Propper, Seiler and Van Reenen).  It will give food for thought, and may provide the impetus for more research into the benefits of introducing competition into the NHS, balanced with not losing all that is good about this unique service.

Longer life…worth living?

Photo courtesy of fubuki on Flickr

Reports this week show that life expectancy in the UK is at an all time high and with the post war baby-boomers hitting retirement age, we have predictions of a crisis in old age care, especially for dementia where funding into research is also questionably low in comparison to other areas of research. However, our youngsters are apparently in worse health than they were a decade ago, with obesity rates soaring and dental health poor, so one wonders whether this might ultimately see life expectancy falling again?

Further coverage this week suggests that risk factors for Alzheimer’s with a strong evidence base include lack of exercise, obesity, high blood pressure, high cholesterol with further evidence pointing to alcohol intake, diet and social activity. The list seems remarkably similar to the list you would see purporting to improve health of youngsters.

On the plus side (I think) scientists report that a new super-pill could see us living in ‘good health’ to 100, eliminating diabetes and dementia (whether you believe the ‘ready in three years’ claim is another matter). It was also reported in the Express, Sky News and others.

With all this contradictory advice going round, it’s hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I’m up for being around for longer, so long as I remain in good health.  It’s a quality plus quantity thing. I’m not planning on waiting for the super-pill as it might just come a bit late.  I also worry that is absolves people from personal responsibility over their well-being. Aside from the genes given to me, I have to accept its really down to me to achieve my goal, so I will continue to throw my trainers on and head out for a jog or cycle ride before I see my friends and enjoy a social evening with good food. It’s all about balance.

Evolution of the doctor’s clipboard

Apple launched the iPad last week. You may have noticed. It was difficult not to, and I’m slightly concerned about adding to the mass of copy online and offline that’s been generated about it. In fact, even today – less than a week since launch – it seems like very old news.

Depending on your view, it’s either another fantastically visionary device from Apple or it’s a piece of hardware designed purely for the fashionistas and Apple fanboys (and girls). There’s a great summary of the positive and negative perspectives here in The Guardian.

The iPad looks like a big iPhone, and to many that’s exactly what it is. It’ll run all the applications that your iPhone does, with the added benefit of a larger screen. That might be enough for a lot of customers. The iPhone is brilliant. How could one with a bigger screen be anything but better?

It was the comparison with the iPhone – and specifically iPhone apps – that started me thinking about the use of the iPad in healthcare. The image of the bedside doctor armed with little but a stethoscope, clipboard and pen is, I think, one of the most iconic in the medical profession. When Steve Jobs was presenting the iPad this week, I got a similar impression.

The iPad is evolutionary rather than revolutionary. It’s an evolution of a smartphone, sure, and in some ways it’s an evolution of a laptop. But I love the idea that it’s the evolution of the clipboard. And just imagine the richness and depth of information that can be delivered on the new clipboard, not only in terms of providing a wealth of information to the healthcare professional, but in allowing them to communicate more clearly with their patients through video, images and text (a theme already discussed by Steve Woodruff and others). For instance existing iPhone applications such as Merck’s hugely successful Merck Manuals app will work immediately with the iPad, and there are hundreds of others already developed and ready to go (disclosure: Galliard works with Merck, but not in relation to the Merck Manuals).

So before any of us have even laid hands on the iPad, our new clipboard’s already looking pretty useful.

Ahh, the tricky first post…

Hello. (Politeness costs nothing, my mum used to say, and it seems a nice way to open things.)

Welcome to Galliard Healthcare’s blog and our first ever post. I guess in comparison to many communication agencies, we’re a bit late to blogging. But then in comparison to many industries, healthcare and pharmaceutical has been a bit slow to social media…

We’re very much finding our feet in digital and social media (both as an agency and as an industry). Clearly many of the regulatory implications of social media for pharma have yet to be fully worked through. Only a few weeks ago the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the US held an open hearing to discuss social media in pharma. Not to propose any new or amended regulations, just to discuss the implications. So it’s early days still. (There’s been quite a bit written about the FDA hearing. Here’s quite a useful perspective).

As a team we’re immersing ourselves in digital and social media tools and applications to better understand how they might be used to benefit our clients’ communications with key audiences and influencers. We’ll no doubt use this blog to publish the things we find interesting and thought-provoking and point you to sources that we find useful.

Hopefully though, this won’t just be a blog about, well, blogging. We’re encouraging people across the agency to post their perspectives on healthcare communications and the industry as a whole. There’ll also no doubt be posts about what the team gets up to outside of work. We’re a bunch with some fairly varied hobbies and passions, so that could be interesting…

But a blog only really comes to life through the participation of others. The conversation that takes place in the comments is very often more interesting than the original post itself (how’s that for getting an excuse for dull posts in early?!) so we’re hoping that readers will jump in with their own views.

We’re also aware that new blogs often enjoy a flurry of early activity before withering on the vine. We’re hoping that won’t happen here, though offer no guarantees! That said, we might not be posting incredibly frequently, but when we do we’ll try and make it worthwhile. It’s a quality over quantity thing.

Oh, and you can also follow us on Twitter here.

Enjoy, and let us know what you think.