Scientific Meetings in The Digital Age Report

Scientific
Meetings in the
Digital Age
The what, where, when and how of evolving
healthcare professional demand and
pharmaceutical industry supply
1
Introduction
Contents HCP: Healthcare professionals PC: Pharmaceutical company SP: Service providers All: All responders
Meeting Size
Background 04 HCP: In the past 12 months, approximately how many times have you
participated in the following sizes of scientific meeting? 22
Study Objectives 05 PC: In the past 12 months, how many times have you supported/
funded the following sizes of scientific meeting? 22
Methodology 06 SP: In the past 12 months, how many times have you supported
provision of the following sizes of scientific meeting? 22
Executive Summary 07 HCP: How do you expect the frequency with which you access the
following sizes of scientific meetings to change in the future? 23
The value of scientific meetings for healthcare 08 PC: How do you expect your support/funding of the following sizes of
professionals and the pharmaceutical industry scientific meetings to change in the future? 23
HCP: Scientific meetings are the most important way for me to Meeting Format
receive new information and learn new skills 08 HCP: In the past 12 months, approximately how many times have you
PC: Scientific meetings are the primary way we provide new participated in the following formats of scientific meetings? 24
information to healthcare professionals 08
PC: In the past 12 months, how many times have you supported/
HCP: Scientific meetings are not as important for me as they once funded the following formats of scientific meetings? 24
were 09 SP: In the past 12 months, how many times have you supported
PC: Scientific meetings are declining in importance for us 09 provision of the following formats of scientific meetings? 24
All: How much value do you attribute to the following types of HCP: How do you expect the frequency with which you access the
scientific meetings for healthcare professionals? 10 following formats of scientific meetings to change in the future? 25
All: How much value do you attribute to accredited versus non- PC: How do you expect your support/funding of the following formats
accredited scientific meetings for healthcare professionals? 12 of scientific meetings for healthcare professionals to change in the
future? 25
All: How much value do you attribute to the following size of
scientific meetings for healthcare professionals? 13 Meeting Duration
All: How much value do you attribute to the following format of HCP: In the past 12 months, approximately how many times have you
scientific meetings for healthcare professionals? 14 participated in the following durations of scientific meeting? 26
All: How much value do you attribute to the following duration of PC: In the past 12 months, approximately how many times have you
scientific meetings for healthcare professionals? 15 supported/funded the following durations of scientific meeting? 26
SP: In the past 12 months, approximately how many times have you
Frequency of healthcare professional attendance and 16 supported provision of the following durations of scientific meeting? 26
industry provision of scientific meetings in the past 12 HCP: How do you expect the frequency with which you access the
months following durations of scientific meetings to change in the future? 27
PC: How do you expect your support/funding of the following

Meeting type
durations of meetings for healthcare professionals to change in the
HCP: In the past 12 months, approximately how many times have you future? 27
participated in the following types of scientific meeting? 16
PC: In the past 12 months, how many times have you supported/ Features demanded by healthcare professionals 28
funded the following types of scientific meeting for healthcare
16
and supplied by the industry in relation to scientific
professionals?
meetings
SP: In the past 12 months, how many times have you supported
provision of the following types of scientific meeting for healthcare HCP: What value do you think the following features add to scientific 28
professionals? 17
meetings and events?
HCP: How do you expect the frequency with which you access the PC/SP: Which of the following have you provided, or supported
following types of scientific meetings to change in the future? 18 provision of, in relation to healthcare professional meetings and
events over the last 12 months? 29
PC: How do you expect your support/funding of the following types of
scientific meetings to change in the future? 19 HCP/PC: A comparison of HCP demand and industry supply for listed
features 30
Meeting Accreditation
PC: Which of the following features would you like to provide more of
HCP: In the past 12 months, approximately how many times have you for healthcare professionals in relation to events? 32
participated in the following types of scientific meeting? 20
HCP: Do you think there is a lack of provision/availability of these
PC: In the past 12 months, approximately how many times have you 32
features?
supported/funded the following types of scientific meeting? 20
PC/SP: Which of the following do you perceive as being difficult to
SP: In the past 12 months, approximately how many times have you provide for HCPs? 33
supported provision of the following types of scientific meeting? 20
HCP: How do you expect the frequency with which you access the 34
Virtual/online access to scientific meetings and their
following types of meetings to change in the future? 21
output Devices used to access medical content
PC: How do you expect your support/funding of the following types
of scientific meetings for healthcare professionals to change in the HCP: When considering whether to attend a conference or event,
future? 21 how often do you investigate whether you can get virtual or online
access to the sessions and materials? 34
2
Introduction
HCP: Healthcare professionals PC: Pharmaceutical company SP: Service providers All: All responders
PC: When planning onsite meetings, how often do you consider the PC/SP: Which of the following content and features exist in the online
opportunities for virtual or online access by healthcare professionals? 34 event portals you provide or support? 50
HCP: Do you believe virtual or online events to be a valuable SP: Digital tools and platforms have increased the lifespan/life-cycle
alternative to onsite meetings? 35 of our congress activities 51
PC/SP: Do you believe that provision of virtual or online events is an

effective alternative to onsite meetings? 35 Industry funding for scientific meetings 52
HCP: How often do you attend or participate in virtual events &
PC: In terms of priority for budget, where does educating healthcare
exhibitions? 36
professionals through scientific meetings come on a scale of 1 to 10? 52
PC/SP: How often do you provide/support/deliver virtual events and
PC: How has your spend on the following changed in the last 12
exhibitions? 36
months? 52
HCP: I interact with more events online than in person 36
SP: How do you think pharma spend on the following has changed in
HCP: Medical societies provide sufficient opportunities to access the last 12 months? 53
their events remotely/online 37
PC: What factors have influenced change in spend on events in
PC: We have increased virtual/online access to events and their general? 53
output 37
HCP: What are your views on pharmaceutical company involvement
PC: Strategic planning around events in the last year has involved with scientific meetings? 54
increased focus on virtual attendance and digital tools 37
HCP: What do you value most about industry-funded events (whether
PC: We have developed new KPIs to take into account virtual access onsite or online)? 55
to congress output 38
PC: Would you like to provide/support more virtual/online event Obstacles to healthcare professional access and 58
activities? 38
industry provision of scientific meetings
PC: What prevents you from providing/supporting more virtual/online
event activities? 39 HCP: What prevents you from accessing more events in the following
ways? 58
HCP: What benefits do you think virtual/online access to events offers
over physical attendance of events? 40 PC: What do you think prevents healthcare professionals from
accessing more events in the following ways? 58
HCP: I find online/virtual events more conducive to learning than live
attendance 40 SP: What do you think prevents healthcare professionals from
accessing more events in the following ways? 59
All: How much overall benefit do you think virtual/online events offer
healthcare professionals over onsite events? 41 PC/SP: What are you doing to try to overcome the challenges for
healthcare professionals in accessing events? 60
PC/SP: Do you see better overall healthcare professional engagement
metrics for virtual/online event access over onsite access? 41 PC/SP: What are you and your clients doing to overcome reasons
preventing healthcare professionals from accessing more onsite and/
PC/SP: For the pharmaceutical industry, what do you consider to be
or digital events? 61
the benefits of virtual/online events over onsite events? 42
PC: Considering provision of events, which of the following pose a
challenge for you? 62
Digital portals for access to scientific 44
PC: What are your greatest challenges regarding meetings and events
meetings and events
(onsite or online)? 64
HCP: Would you use an online portal that allows you to access
PC: What are you doing to try to overcome these challenges? 66
content from conferences and other events when convenient for you? 44
SP: What are your greatest challenges regarding meetings and events
HCP: I would prefer to access conference materials throughout the
(onsite or online)? 68
year rather than limited to the duration of the event 45
SP: What are you doing to try to overcome these challenges? 70
HCP: Do you believe that access to information and discussion
beyond the event helps you apply new medical approaches more
quickly? 45 Demographics of study participants 72
PC/SP: How much focus do you give to discussion and dissemination
HCP: What is your profession? 72
of information for healthcare professionals beyond the live event? 46
HCP: Where do you practice medicine? 72
HCP: How do you value the following content and features of online
event portals? 47 HCP: Please select your core medical specialty and any other areas
of interest 73
HCP: Rate your level of trust in an online event hub supplied by the
following... 47 HCP: In which decade were you born? 73
PC/SP: Do you support provision of online portals designed to assist PC/SP: What type of organisation do you work for? 74
HCP access to output from conferences and events? 48 PC: What is your role? 74
PC: What are your primary reasons for not supporting provision of PC/SP: What is your main geographical area of responsibility? 75
online portals designed to aid HCP access to output from events? 48
PC/SP: In which decade were you born? 75
PC: Do you invest more in your own portals or independent portals
designed to support healthcare professional access to output from
events? 49 Conclusions 76
SP: Do you work more on the provision of bespoke/client-owned

portals or independent portals designed to support healthcare About EPG Communications Group 79
professional access to output from events? 49
3
Introduction
Background
As digital channels for supply of information

evolve, so too do the demands of healthcare
professionals and the opportunities for
the pharmaceutical industry.
The pharmaceutical industry has always supported attend scientific meetings and would like information to
scientific meetings as a form of face-to-face education for be available online and in real time, for remote access
healthcare professionals (HCPs). Effective education is vital around their practice commitments, and that 83% expect
to improving health outcomes, and, as funding for training post-meeting materials to be available via a meeting
suffers, it increasingly becomes a responsibility as well as portal website.4 Ashfield Healthcare concluded that “the
an opportunity for the industry to provide support. As digital overwhelming view from HCPs is that meetings in 10
channels for supply of information evolve, so too do the years’ time will be largely virtual and interactive”.5
demands of HCPs and the opportunities for pharma.
Reflecting on Ashfield Healthcare’s research and factors
With differing sources and data reported, accurately affecting HCP decisions to attend events, Andrew
determining pharma spend on HCP education is difficult. Winterburn for PME advised that the industry needs to
However, it appears to be the case that overall spend on stop talking about HCPs as ‘virtual’ or ‘physical’ attendees,
‘traditional’ activities such as conferences and events and instead look at them as consumers seeking
remains largely unchanged, while budgets for digital continuous medical education.6 Education needs to be
activities are increasing. supplied via channels and formats geared towards the
unique behaviour and learning preferences of individuals.
In 2016, MM&M reported that 80% of healthcare marketers Creating a personalised learning experience is key to good
turned to scientific meetings in 2015, the same percentage engagement and user experience.
as in 2014, spending on average 13.7% of marketing budget
(more than for any other channel).1 Meanwhile, eMarketer Pharmaceutical companies, event organisers and
estimated a 13% compound annual growth rate over five supporting agencies are acknowledging that various
years in pharma spending on digital marketing.2 elements of the digital landscape offer opportunities
to position themselves as leaders in HCP education.
Data also suggests that HCP demand remains high for However, across the board, efforts are put into getting
participation in onsite scientific meetings and events as the strategy right without successfully turning those
part of their professional education, but that they are strategies into programmes, tools and techniques that
embracing virtual/online events and the digital tools that can produce the desired results.
support scientific meetings.3 Therefore, pharma, medical
associations, agencies, event firms and other stakeholders Meeting in Gothenburg in November 2016, ICON, a
involved in the delivery of scientific meetings, need to partnership of world leading conference, event and
evolve and cater to the new opportunities, demands and association management companies, gathered a large
challenges that accompany the evolving digital landscape group of stakeholders to discuss recent trends in the
and a new generation of delegates. organisation of medical meetings.7 It was broadly agreed
by participants that organisers need to play a part in
However, a 2016 study by Ashfield Healthcare uncovered getting the balance right between the needs for great
that HCP expectations are not being met and that demand onsite scientific meetings and for virtual or online access.
outstrips supply for more virtual/digital events and support They concluded that great education must be delivered
tools. It reported that 61% of HCPs find it difficult to beyond the onsite experience; technology needs to be
4
Introduction
Study objectives
The objectives of this study

are to provide insight into:
Demand versus supply

Where events sit in the education mix for HCPs and
the healthcare industry and how is that changing
Format
Formats and features valued by HCPs and provided
by industry
Access
Factors impacting access to scientific meetings
leveraged, innovative services need to counteract those
Tools and technology
diminished by compliance changes and, as pharma
The extent to which digital tools and channels are being
elects to invest less in promotional booths and more
harnessed by providers of events and used by attendees,
in other parts of the scientific programme, investment
and to what extent this benefits the stakeholders
opportunities must diversify.
Obstacles
In the same vein, Len Starnes, in an interview with Regulatory, compliance, availability, resource, technology
eyeforpharma back in 2014, pointed out that “[a]
hundred years ago, medical society conferences were Collaboration
staged in more or less the same way as they are How stakeholders work together, including pharma
staged today”, and that the traditional medical society (internally and externally), HCPs, patients, medical
conference model was no longer fit for purpose, being associations, technology providers & content providers
not only expensive for pharma to participate but also
increasingly restrictive due to regulations. Starnes Content
How digital channels impact event content and its delivery
called for a more collaborative and interactive format,
with integration into the virtual environment, but
Resource
acknowledged that within a highly conservative industry,
How the resources of all stakeholders are changing and
this was only likely to happen once the majority of
what impact this has
stakeholders demanded or accepted it.8
Behaviour
There has, in the last few years, been much industry How is it changing and how is that change catered for
discussion about the future of scientific meetings and
the impact plus potential that evolving technologies Demographic variations
and behaviour change bring. But what does this What impact age, profession and geography have
future really look like and how far away are we from
delivering what HCPs want right now and in the Value
future? The answers to such questions will be key Factors affecting the value that stakeholders attribute to
scientific meetings
to pharmaceutical companies, conference organisers
and supporting agencies establishing a collaborative
Measurement
approach to catering to the changing requirements of
How and to what extent effectiveness of meetings is
all stakeholders.
measured
In May 2017, EPG Health Media conducted research Accreditation

designed to provide valuable insights into a number of To what extent is it provided how important is it
themes in relation to medical meetings.
This study is important to the pharmaceutical

industry, medical associations and other
organisations involved in the delivery of
1
www.mmm-online.com/campaigns/how-is-pharma-shifting-its-marketing-budgets/article/478966
2
www.fiercepharma.com/marketing/pharma-digital-spending-ticks-upward-slowly-but-surely scientific meetings. It is intended to support
3
www.meddatagroup.com decisions related to strategy, channels
4
www.ashfieldhealthcare.com/gb/post/the-changing-face-of-physician-needs/ wp-content/uploads/ON24.pdf and formats that can lead to better HCP
5
www.ashfieldhealthcare.com/gb/post/the-changing-face-of-physician-needs
engagement.
6
www.pmlive.com/pharma_thought_leadership/the_future_of_meetings_1007857
7
www.incon-pco.com/university-learnings-2016.html
8
social.eyeforpharma.com/digital/it-time-conference-go-virtual
5
Introduction
Methodology
This report is based on an independent

study designed and conducted by
EPG Communications Group
The study is based on surveys conducted with two

respondent groups: healthcare professionals (HCPs) and
industry professionals (pharmaceutical companies and service
providers). The findings from each respondent group are
compared within the report.
Every effort has been taken to ensure that it is transparent,

comprehensive and reliable.
Note: Results are reliable

within +/-6% at the 95%
Sample groups
confidence level.
For some questions, totals
may be 1% either side of Healthcare professionals
100% due to rounding of
decimal places.
Target respondents Medically qualified healthcare professionals (validated through
registration and qualifying questions)
Respondent source epgonline.org database of healthcare professionals
Sample size 257
Location Global
Survey language English
Survey period May 2017
Survey method Emailed link to an online survey
Sampling Random, voluntary (no honoraria), no control group
Incentive Entrance into prize draw for an Amazon Echo
Industry professionals
Target respondents Pharmaceutical companies and other organisations involved in

the provision of scientific meetings (validated through qualifying
questions)
Respondent Source EPG Communications Group database and social media
Sample size 200 (109 pharmaceutical companies, 91 service providers)
Location Global
Survey language English
Survey period May 2017
Survey method Emailed link to an online survey
Sampling Random, voluntary (no honoraria), no control group
Incentive Early access to free full report of study findings
Report response key

Healthcare professionals Service providers Pharmaceutical Industry*
* ’Industry’ refers to both pharmaceutical and service provider respondents
6
Introduction
Executive Summary
This report was commissioned to examine how HCP

demand and industry supply of scientific meetings
are evolving. As digital technologies grow, so do the
opportunities to provide and access conferences and
their output via multiple channels, formats and tools.
Evaluation of current behaviours and obstacles are
intended to support decisions that lead to better medical
education, engagement and outcomes.
This report highlights The report is based on an independent study conducted
where industry focus in May 2017 with 3 global stakeholder groups
should be in terms of (healthcare professionals, pharmaceutical industry

professionals and service providers). Insights from the
providing what HCPs survey respondent groups combined indicate that:
want (from meetings); • Industry largely understands and caters to current

HCP demands for onsite meetings in terms of type,
where (onsite and frequency and duration
online), when (live and However:

on demand) and how • There are insufficient opportunities to access content
(format and features) from meetings online, and the formats and features
to support online access are lacking
they want it. • Pharma aims to improve online access to meetings
but internal factors such as a lack of confidence,
resource and clearly defined strategy are holding
pharma back
• Industry service providers are more advanced than

pharma in terms of understanding and catering to the
demands of HCPs for online access
• HCPs value pharma support but prefer the content

and channels to be independent, meanwhile pharma
is more focused on building its own
To satisfy HCP demand for convenient online and

on-demand access to meetings, industry must focus
beyond its own agenda and develop more customer
focused objectives and strategies. Better collaboration
would mutually benefit all stakeholders in overcoming
the challenges and improving the value of scientific
meetings in the digital age.
7
The value of scientific meetings for healthcare professionals and the pharmaceutical industry
Scientific meetings are the most important way for

me to receive new information and learn new skills
Healthcare professionals (Fig. 1)
66% 21% 13%

Agree Disagree Unsure
Scientific meetings are the primary way we provide

new information to healthcare professionals
Pharmaceutical (Fig.2)
43% 38% 19%

8
Scientific meetings are not as important
for me as they once were
31% 56% 13%

Scientific meetings are declining

in importance for us
Pharmaceutical (Fig. 4)
25% 59% 17%

Agree
Disagree Unsure
Two thirds of HCPs agreed that scientific meetings are the most important way
for them to receive new information and skills, however, almost one third stated that
meetings are not as important for them as they once were.
43% of pharma respondents agreed that scientific meetings are their primary
method of providing new information to HCPs, however, 25% also agreed that
they are declining in importance.
9
How much value do you attribute to the following types

of scientific meetings for healthcare professionals?
Healthcare professionals (Fig. 5) Very low Low Medium High Very high
Medical society conference 3% 3% 17% 36% 42%
Practical training or workshop - 0% 16% 42% 39%

society or institution led 3%
1% 21% 41% 34%

Scientific symposium 3%
Seminar or lecture - 0%
23% 44% 30%
Practical training or workshop - 4% 14% 38% 27% 16%

pharmaceutical company led
Investigator meeting 5% 10% 29% 42% 13%
Advisory board 3% 8% 44% 34% 12%
Seminar or lecture - 4% 21% 41% 25% 9%

Company product launch meeting 9% 31% 38% 14% 8%
Symposium - pharmaceutical company led 4% 20% 47% 20% 8%
Standalone meeting - 7% 27% 40% 20% 6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Pharmaceutical (Fig. 6) Very low Low Medium High Very high
2% 23% 34% 36%

Medical society conference 4%
Practical training or workshop -

2% 7% 28% 46% 17%
society or institution led
0%
Scientific symposium 15% 57% 23%
4%

Advisory board 4% 4% 8% 46% 38%

4%
Symposium - pharmaceutical company led 2%
47% 28% 19%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
10
Service providers (Fig. 7) Very low Low Medium High Very high
0%
Medical society conference 20% 40% 37%
3%
Practical training or workshop - 0%

7% 63% 27%
Scientific symposium 0% 7% 14% 55% 24%

3%
Advisory board 20% 47% 27%
3%

Symposium - pharmaceutical company led 13% 17% 40% 23% 7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
More than 70% of HCP respondents attributed high or very

high value to medical society conferences, society or
institution led practical training, workshops, seminars and
lectures and scientific symposia. They attributed least value
to product launch meetings, and pharmaceutical led
symposia and standalone meetings, with fewer than 30%
finding them of high value.
The importance attributed to society or institution led seminars

and workshops is lower for industry respondents than it is for
HCPs, while the importance of advisory boards and pharma led
symposia is higher.
11
How much value do you attribute to accredited

versus non-accredited scientific meetings for
healthcare professionals?
Non-accredited meeting 3% 18% 47% 28% 4%
1%
CME accredited meeting 18% 40% 38%
3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Non-accredited meeting 5% 16% 45%

30% 5%
CME accredited meeting 2% 4% 9% 49% 36%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
3%
CME accredited meeting 17% 40% 40%
0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
HCPs, pharma and service providers all attributed significantly

more value to CME accredited events than non-accredited,
with over 75% of each group attributing high or very high
value to accredited events, compared to less than 35% who
attributed high value to non-accredited events.
Key insight
75% of each group attributed high or very
high value to accredited events, compared to
less than 35% who attributed high value to
non-accredited events.
12
How much value do you attribute to the
following sizes of scientific meetings for
healthcare professionals?
Large live events: over 500 attendees 6% 23% 23% 34% 13%
Medium live events: 50–500 attendees 0% 9% 31% 44% 16%
Small live events: 10-50 attendees 0% 5% 23% 53% 19%
Very small live events: under 10 attendees 6% 12% 24% 34% 24%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Small live events: under 50 attendees 4% 4% 23% 44% 25%
Small interactive groups: 5–10 attendees 6% 6% 13% 46% 29%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
22%
Large live events: over 500 attendees 12% 22% 41%
3%
41%
Medium live events: 50–500 attendees 3% 16% 41%
0%
0%
Small live events: under 50 attendees 19% 66% 16%
0%
0%
Small interactive groups: 5–10 attendees 16% 44% 41%
0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
For all three respondent groups, the perceived value of onsite meetings decreases
with size, though this is more significant for pharma than it is for HCPs. However,
less than half of HCPs attributed high or very high value to large events (over 500
attendees), compared to almost three quarters who attributed high or very high value
to small onsite events (10-50 attendees).
13

following formats of scientific meetings
for healthcare professionals?
One-way, live-streamed virtual event 3% 14% 42% 31% 9%
Interactive online event/webinar

3% 9% 36% 38% 13%
(engage live online)
Physical attendance in
3% 15% 28% 34% 20%
another country
On demand event
2% 9% 36% 29% 23%
(access online at any time)
Physical attendance in 0%
22% 49% 26%
your country/region 3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
29%
One-way, live-streamed virtual event 4% 22% 40%
4%

4% 10% 25% 40% 21%
6% 13% 19% 36% 26%
another country
On demand event
6% 17% 25% 33% 19%
24% 43% 28%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
19%
3%
Interactive online event/webinar 50%

3% 6% 37%
(engage live online) 3%

0% 19% 37%
another country 3%
On demand event 3%
34% 47% 12%
(access online at any time) 3%
12% 72% 12%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
All three respondent groups attributed highest value to onsite events in the
HCP’s country or region, with more than 70% rating these of high or very high
value. The majority of respondents from all three respondent groups perceived all
meeting formats to be of at least medium value. Online meetings vary in value,
with ‘on demand’ access to events being the second most valuable format of
meeting among HCPs but ‘one-way live streamed events’ valued lowest by all
three respondent groups.
14
following durations of scientific meetings
for healthcare professionals?
3+ day event 10% 17% 31% 26% 15%
2 day event 2% 6% 27% 43% 21%
1 day event 0% 6% 17% 52% 25%
3% 10% 28% 37% 23%

Half day or less event
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
3+ day event 27% 29% 23% 15% 6%
2 day event 8% 22% 37% 27% 6%
1 day event 2% 13% 25% 50% 10%
2%
Half day or less event 18% 44% 33%
2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
34%
3+ day event 25% 28% 9%
3%
2 day event 6% 22% 31% 28% 12%
3%
1 day event 19% 56% 22%
0%
Half day or less event 0% 6% 19% 39% 35%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
HCPs attributed most value to one day events, with 77% rating them of high
or very high value. While three day or longer events were rated of least value by
HCPs (only 41% rated them of high or very high value), pharmaceutical company
and service provider respondents rated three day events even lower in value, with
just 21% and 12% attributing high or very high value.
15
Frequency of healthcare professional attendance and industry provision of scientific meetings in the past 12 months
In the past 12 months, approximately

how many times have you participated in
the following types of scientific meeting?
Healthcare professionals (Fig. 20) 0 1 2 3 to 5 6+
7%
Company product launch meeting 63% 15% 13%
1%
Standalone meeting - 11%

60% 19% 9%
pharmaceutical company led 1%
8%
Advisory board 60% 18% 13%
1%

57% 21% 14%
pharmaceutical company led 4%
9%
Investigator meeting 57% 18% 15%
1%
Seminar or lecture -
41% 25% 17% 12% 6%
37% 35% 17%
Symposium -
36% 24% 16% 17% 8%
29% 23% 23% 16% 9%
25%
Scientific symposium 24% 28% 18%
5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
In the past 12 months, how many times have you

supported/funded the following types of scientific
meeting for healthcare professionals?
Pharmaceutical (Fig. 21) 0 1 2 3 to 5 6+
7%
Company product launch meeting 44% 29% 16% 4%
Standalone meeting -
39% 16% 17% 17% 11%
Advisory board 20% 20% 24% 30% 5%

39% 27% 9% 14% 11%
11%
Investigator meeting 58% 18% 12%
2%
40% 13% 21% 16% 10%
59% 13% 10% 4%
Symposium -
20% 22% 24% 22% 12%
53% 19% 10% 9% 9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
16
In the past 12 months, how many times have you
supported provision of the following types of
scientific meeting for healthcare professionals?

Advisory board 18% 18% 28% 18% 18%

56% 6% 11% 19% 9%
52% 11% 14% 11% 13%
33% 18% 22% 18% 8%
Symposium -
24% 23% 26% 15% 13%
55% 12% 12%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Over half of HCP respondents had not attended any of the following types of events
in the past 12 months: company product launch meetings, pharma led standalone
meetings, advisory boards, investigator meetings or pharma led training/workshops.
At least three quarters had attended one or more medical society conference
and satellite symposium, with over 30% attending at least three of each. 60% had
attended at least one pharma led symposium.
Over half of both pharma respondents and service provider respondents had
supported two or more of the following in the last 12 months: advisory boards,
pharma led symposia and medical society conferences. The majority had supported
at least one of the following: company product launch meetings, pharma standalone
meetings or pharma led training/workshops. Less than half had supported society or
institution led seminars, lectures, training, workshops or investigator meetings.
Only 40% of HCPs had attended an advisory board meeting in the last 12 months
while 80% of pharma and 82% of service provider respondents had supported
provision of these.
17
How do you expect the frequency with which

you access the following types of scientific
meetings to change in the future?
Healthcare professionals (Fig. 23) Not sure Reduce Stay the same Increase
17% 16% 61% 6%
17% 13% 62% 9%
Symposium -
14% 18% 57% 12%

15% 14% 59% 12%
Investigator meeting 22% 6% 58% 15%
Advisory board 24% 4% 54% 18%
Seminar or lecture - 11% 5% 64% 19%


9%
Medical society conference 63% 27%
1%
7%
Scientific symposium 64% 27%
2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
18
How do you expect your support/funding
of the following types of scientific meetings
to change in the future?
Pharmaceutical (Fig. 24) Not sure Reduce Stay the same Increase
23% 21% 44% 12%
29% 14% 50% 7%
Symposium -
16% 18% 48% 18%

30% 9% 41% 20%
Investigator meeting 25% 10% 53% 13%
Advisory board 14% 7% 64% 16%

28% 12%

Medical society conference 19% 14% 51% 16%
Scientific symposium 14% 9% 73% 5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Most HCP respondents expected their future attendance of all types of meetings
or events to remain the same, and pharma respondents did not expect any
significant change in funding or support.
19
In the past 12 months, approximately how many times have

you participated in the following types of scientific meeting?
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
In the past 12 months, approximately how many times have you

supported/funded the following types of scientific meeting?
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

supported provision of the following types of scientific meeting?
Service providers (Fig. 27) 0 1 2 3 to 5 6+
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
HCPs are attending more CME accredited meetings than non-accredited

meetings, with over half having attended three or more CME accredited meetings
in the last 12 months, compared to 25% who had attended three or more non-
accredited events. Pharma and service provider respondents had supported
significantly fewer CME accredited meetings than accredited ones, with over one
third not supporting any accredited meetings.
20
How do you expect the frequency with which you access the
following types of meetings to change in the future?
Non-accredited meeting 14% 15% 62% 9%
10%
CME accredited meeting 54% 34%
1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
How do you expect your support/funding of the following

types of scientific meetings for healthcare professionals to
change in the future?
Non-accredited meeting 21% 16% 56% 7%
CME accredited meeting 20% 5% 48% 27%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
While most HCP respondents expected their frequency of attendance frequency

for both accredited and non-accredited events to stay the same in future, one third
expected their attendance of accredited events to increase and over one quarter of
pharma respondents expected to increase their support of CME accredited events,
with a reduction in support for non-accredited events.
21

participated in the following sizes of scientific meeting?
Small interactive groups: 5–10 attendees 32% 22% 21% 19% 5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
In the past 12 months, how many times have you supported/

funded the following sizes of scientific meeting?
Very small live groups: under 10 attendees 28% 20% 12% 18% 22%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
In the past 12 months, how many times have you supported

provision of the following sizes of scientific meeting?
Very small live events: under 10 attendees 19% 15% 23% 21% 23%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
HCPs attended, and industry supported, significantly more small to medium onsite
events than they did either large events or small interactive groups. Over one third
of HCPs had not attended a large event in the last 12 months, more than double
the number that had not attended either a small or medium event. Industry support/
funding and HCP attendance closely mirror each other.
22
following sizes of scientific meetings to change in the future?
Large live events: over 500 attendees 17% 14% 51% 18%
Medium live events: 50–500 attendees 11% 16% 60% 12%
Small live events: under 50 attendees 11% 31% 56% 3%
Small interactive groups: 5–10 attendees 11% 25% 58% 6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

sizes of scientific meetings to change in the future?
Large live events: over 500 attendees 17% 12% 24% 48%
Medium live events: 50–500 attendees 12% 15% 37% 37%
Small live events: under 50 attendees 14% 24% 57% 5%
Small interactive groups: 5–10 attendees 10% 17% 52% 21%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
While most HCPs expected the frequency with which they attend different
sized events to remain the same, almost one third believed that their
attendance of small onsite events would increase. This is mirrored by pharma
responses, with almost one quarter expecting to support more small live events in
the future and almost half expecting their support for large live events to reduce.
23

participated in the following formats of scientific meetings?
On demand event
51% 15% 15% 11% 7%
Interactive online event/webinar 14%

50% 20% 14%
(engage live online) 1%

40% 27% 17%
another country 2%
13%
4%
Physical attendance in 6% 19% 25% 29% 21%

your country/region
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
In the past 12 months, how many times have you supported/

funded the following formats of scientific meetings?
On demand event
48% 25% 10% 6% 10%

45% 17% 17% 11% 11%
22% 16% 16% 26% 19%
another country
15% 15% 20% 28% 21%
your country/region
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
In the past 12 months, how many times have you supported

provision of the following formats of scientific meetings?
On demand event 38% 19% 26% 6X% 11%

Interactive online event/webinar 36% 19% 15% 15% 15%

Physical attendance in 24% 14% 21% 21% 21%

another country
14% 17% 24% 17% 27%
your country/region
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Nearly two thirds of HCPs attended at least one live-

streamed event in the last 12 months, while only half
of pharma respondents had supported any. Half of HCP
respondents attended two or more onsite events in their Key insight
country, with half of pharma respondents supporting at least
two local onsite events. Despite ‘on demand’ digital events
Despite HCPs highly valuing online
being considered of most value after local onsite events
access to events on demand, this format
(Fig.14), they are the least attended by HCPs and least
is the least supported by industry.
supported by industry. Only half of HCPs attended one in the
last 12 months and half of pharma supported one.
24
following formats of scientific meetings to change in the future?
6% 5% 69% 21%
your country/region
11% 20% 49% 21%
another country
One-way virtual event

12% 3% 38% 47%
(streamed live online)
On demand event
13% 3% 36% 48%

12% 2% 35% 51%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

formats of scientific meetings for healthcare professionals
11% 45% 39% 5%
your country/region
9% 16% 56% 19%
another country
One-way virtual event

19% 16% 30% 35%
(streamed live online)
On demand event
14% 14% 30% 42%

18% 9% 18% 55%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Half of HCPs expected their attendance of online meetings to increase in future

and 20% believed that their attendance of physical events overseas would reduce.
This observation is reflected in pharma responses, with over half expecting to
increase support for interactive online events, 42% increasing support of on
demand digital events and 45% reducing support for international onsite events.
Key insight
Half of HCPs expect their attendance of
online meetings to increase in future.
25

participated in the following durations of scientific meeting?
3+ day event 39% 23% 16% 20% 2%
2 day event 26% 27% 26% 18% 4%
1 day event 13% 30% 22% 23% 11%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

supported/funded the following durations of scientific meeting?
3+ day event 54% 13% 10% 17% 6%
2 day event 36% 16% 23% 15% 10%
1 day event 21% 26% 15% 28% 10%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

supported provision of the following durations of scientific meeting?
3+ day event 53% 15% 4% 9% 19%
2 day event 38% 17% 15% 13% 17%
1 day event 17% 22% 20% 27% 15%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
HCPs most frequently attended 1 day medical meetings, with 87% having
attended at least one in the last 12 months, compared to 61% who attended at least
one 3-day or longer meeting. The pharma industry is also supporting more events
of a shorter duration, with more than half having supported three or more half day
meetings compared to less than half having supported one 3-day or longer event.
26
How do you expect the frequency with which you
access the following duration of scientific meetings
3+ day event 12% 23% 53% 12%
2 day event 11% 7% 70% 11%
1 day event 8% 1% 63% 27%
Half day or less event 7% 3% 54% 36%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
How do you expect your support/funding of the

following durations of meetings for healthcare
professionals to change in the future?
3+ day event 24% 52% 19% 5%
40%
2 day event 16% 42%
2%
1 day event 17% 19% 50% 14%
Half day or less event 12% 7% 38% 43%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
The preference for shorter event duration (Fig.17) looks set to continue, with
approximately one quarter of HCPs expecting to reduce their attendance of 3-day
or longer events, and over one quarter expecting to increase their attendance
of meetings of one day or less in duration. Over half of pharma respondents
indicated that they expect to reduce funding/support of 3-day or longer events,
with 43% expecting to increase support of meetings lasting half a day or less.
27
Features demanded by healthcare professionals and supplied by the industry in relation to scientific meetings
What value do you think the following features

add to scientific meetings and events?
Healthcare professionals (Fig. 45) High Medium Low I have never used
Live case study discussions 64% 25% 6% 5%
Videos of presentations -
56% 30% 8% 5%
post-event, on demand
Training tools 54% 37% 4% 4%
CME/eCME accreditation 52% 34% 7% 6%
eLearning modules (available 51% 35% 9% 5%

after event for attendees)
Written/printed proceedings documents 49% 36% 12% 3%
Presenter slide decks 49% 38% 8% 4%
A more interactive and less didactic/ 49% 37% 11% 4%

lecture style of meeting
Discussion forums for 47% 40% 6% 6%
peer-to-peer interaction
Animation - mode of action 47% 35% 12% 6%
Real-time Q&A with faculty 47% 36% 8% 9%
Videos on demand 47% 36% 10% 6%
Animation - mechanism of disease 47% 36% 11% 6%
Conference highlights 46% 44% 7% 3%
Physical onsite exhibitions 44% 37% 14% 5%
Live streaming of presentations 41% 41% 12% 5%
Dedicated online portal hosting

40% 45% 6% 8%
material from the event
Global access via any device 39% 43% 11% 8%
Conference/meeting App 32% 41% 15% 11%
Ability to like, rate, review, share and

31% 44% 19% 6%
comment on the event material
Local experts and language/
31% 29% 25% 15%
translations (for your country)
Preceptorships (individual tutoring) 31% 42% 10% 18%
Opportunity to input on the agenda 30% 42% 11% 17%
Ongoing (not real-time) Q&A with faculty 30% 46% 13% 11%
Polls & voting 29% 34% 31% 6%
Patient attendance/involvement 22% 36% 29% 14%
Education based games 21% 37% 27% 16%
Online/virtual exhibitions 20% 42% 28% 11%
Virtual reality or wearable technology 16% 36% 24% 23%
Social media 13% 43% 36% 8%
Event hashtags 11% 29% 39% 22%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
At least half of HCPs cited all but one of the 32 features listed as being of high or
medium value. Reported of high value by at least half of HCP respondents were
live case study discussion, videos of presentations post-event and on demand,
training tools, CME/eCME accreditation and eLearning modules.
Reported of least value were social media and event hashtags with over one third
of HCPs rating them as low value, and a further 22% reporting to have never used
event hashtags.
28
Which of the following have you provided, or supported
provision of, in relation to healthcare professional
meetings and events over the last 12 months?
Pharmaceutical / Service providers (Fig. 46) Pharmaceutical companies Service providers
Opportunity for HCPs to input on the agenda 61% 67%
Presenter slide decks 58% 62%
Polls & voting 57% 57%
Physical onsite exhibitions 53% 54%
Conference highlights 53% 43%
Real-time Q&A with faculty 51% 48%
Conference/meeting app 49% 52%
CME/eCME accreditation 47% 44%
Videos of presentations - 45% 59%

post-event, on-demand
Social media 43% 48%
Live case study discussions 42% 43%
Discussion forums for

42% 39%
Animation - mode of action 38% 31%
A more interactive and less didactic/

36% 44%
lecture style of meeting
Patient attendance/involvement 34% 33%
Local experts and language/translations 32% 36%
Training tools 32% 43%
eLearning modules (post event for attendees) 32% 49%
Written/printed proceedings documents 29% 30%
Event hashtags 29% 18%
Animation - mechanism of disease 27% 33%
Dedicated online portal hosting

26% 28%
Videos on demand 25% 25%
Ongoing (not real-time) Q&A with faculty 25% 21%
Educational based games 23% 39%
Live streaming of presentations 23% 38%
Preceptorships (individual tutoring) 23% 13%
Global access via any device 21% 30%
Ability to like, rate, review, share and

13% 26%
Virtual reality or wearable technology 13% 13%
Online/virtual exhibitions 10% 25%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140%
The involvement of pharma and service providers in the provision of the 32 features
listed is closely aligned. Opportunities for HCPs to input on the agenda was cited
as the feature provided most by pharma (61%) and service provider respondents
(67%), while virtual reality/wearable technology was among the least provided by
pharma (13%) and service provider respondents (13%).
29
This graph shows the percentage of HCP respondents who

rated each feature of high value (Fig.45) and the percentage
of pharma respondents who reported supplying those
same features in the past 12 months (Fig.46)
Healthcare professionals / Pharmaceutical (Fig. 47) Percentage of Pharma respondents who have supplied in last 12 months
Percentage of HCPs that rated as ‘high value’
Percentage difference between HCP responses and Pharma responses
42% 22%
Live case study discussions
64%
Videos of presentations - post-event, 45% 11%

on-demand 56%
32% 54%
Training tools
22%
47% 5%
CME/eCME accreditation
52%
eLearning modules (available 32% 19%

after event for attendees) 51%
29% 20%
Written/printed proceedings documents
49%
58%
Presenter slide decks
49% 9%
A more interactive and less didactic/ 36% 13%

lecture style of meeting 49%
42% 5%
Discussion forums for peer-to-peer interaction 47%
51%
Real-time Q&A with faculty 47% 4%
38% 9%
Animation - mode of action 47%
25% 22%
Videos on demand 47%
27% 20%
Animation - mechanism of disease 47%
53%
Conference highlights 46% 7%
53%
Physical on-site exhibitions 44% 9%
23% 18%
Live streaming of presentations 41%
Dedicated online portal hosting 26% 14%

material from the event 40%
21% 18%
Global access via any device 39%
49%
Conference/meeting App 32% 17%
Ability to like, rate, review, share and 13% 18%

comment on the event material 31%
Local experts and language/ 32%

translations (for your country) 31% 1%
23% 8%
Preceptorships (individual tutoring) 31%
61%
Opportunity to input on the agenda 30% 31%
25% 5%
Ongoing (not real-time) Q&A with faculty 30%
57%
Polls & voting 29% 28%
34%
Patient attendance/involvement 22% 12%
23%
Education based games 21% 2%
10% 10%
Online/virtual exhibitions 20%
13% 3%
Virtual reality or wearable technology 16%
43%
Social media 13% 30%
29%
Event hashtags 11% 18%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
30
There is a significant lack of correlation between the value that HCPs attributed to
features and tools related to meetings and those which pharma reported supplying.
Features for which the value that HCPs attributed was significantly higher than
the provision reported by pharma include: live case study discussion (64% versus
42%), training tools (54% versus 32%), printed proceedings (49% versus 29%),
videos on demand (47% versus 25%), live streaming (41% versus 23%), online
portals for hosting materials from the event (40% versus 26%), global access via
any device (39% versus 21%) and ability to like, rate, review, share and comment on
event materials (31% versus 13%).
Features for which the value HCP attributed was significantly lower than the
provision reported by pharma respondents, include: conference meeting apps
(32% versus 49%), opportunities to input on the agenda (30% versus 61%), polls and
voting (29% versus 57%), social media (13% versus 43%) and event hashtags (11%
versus 29%).
Features for which HCP value and Industry supply were closely aligned include
CME/ accreditation (52% versus 47%), presenter slide decks (49% versus 58%),
discussion forums (47% versus 42%), real-time Q&A with faculty (47% versus 51%),
conference highlights (46% versus 53%), onsite exhibitions (44% versus 53%) and
local experts and language (31% versus 32%).
Features that were neither rated highly by HCPs nor provided by pharma in the
past 12 months include: virtual exhibitions (20% versus 10%) and virtual reality/
wearable technology (16% versus 13%).
Key insight
There is a significant lack of correlation
between the value that HCPs attribute to
features and tools related to meetings and
those which pharma report supplying.
31
Which of the following features would you like to provide

more of for healthcare professionals in relation to events?
Do you think there is a lack of

provision/availability of these features?
Healthcare professionals (Fig. 48) Pharma respondents who want to provide more
HCP respondents who think there is a lack of provision
61%
Opportunity for HCPs to input on the agenda 36%
39%
Patient attendance/involvement 30%
45%
eLearning modules 28%
14%
23%
45%
Videos on demand 25%
45%
Live case study discussions 25%
43%
45%
Training tools 23%
34%
Presenter slide decks 23%
Videos of presentations - 41%

22%
post-event, on demand
41%
45%
Ongoing (not real-time) Q&A with 21%
52%
Real-time Q&A with faculty 21%
23%
39%
A less didactic or lecture style of meeting 19%
30%
Educational based games 18%
9%
Written/printed proceedings documents 18%
27%
Discussion forums for peer-to-peer 70%

interaction 17%
39%
Social media 16%
Dedicated online portal hosting 39%

14%
43%
Conference/meeting app 13%
32%
57%
CME/eCME accreditation 13%
48%
Polls & voting 12%
Ability to like, rate, review, share and 27%

comment on the event material 11%

11%
45%
Conference highlights (condition based) 11%
23%
Event hashtags 9%
5%
Physical onsite exhibitions 5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
There is a lack of correlation between the features that the agenda, accreditation and real-time Q&A with faculty. For
HCPs perceive as lacking in provision and those of which both HCPs and pharma, onsite exhibitions were least lacking in
pharma would like to provide more. Less than 40% of all provision.
HCP respondents reported a lack of any of the 31 features
listed, while more than 40% of pharma respondents wanted While HCPs cited ‘opportunity to input on the agenda’ and
to provide more of 21 of the features. Most lacking for ‘patient involvement’ among the features most lacking, these
HCPs were opportunity to input on the agenda, patient features are also among those ranked of lesser value to them
involvement and eLearning modules. Pharma respondents (Fig.45). Live case study discussions and videos on demand
most wanted to increase provision of discussion forums for are among those features that are ranked higher by HCPs both
peer-to-peer interaction, opportunities for HCPs to input on in terms of demand and lack of provision.
32
Which of the following do you perceive
as being difficult to provide for HCPs?
56%
Social media 34%
51%
Patient attendance/involvement 59%
38%
Opportunity to input on the agenda 45%
36%
Event hashtags 14%
Discussion forums for 33%

45%
33%
Real-time Q&A with faculty 24%
31%
28%
Ongoing (not real-time) Q&A with faculty 41%
23%
CME/eCME accreditation 21%
23%
Educational based games 31%
23%
Conference/meeting App 10%
21%
21%
Ability to like, rate, review, share and 21%

28%
18%
18%
A less didactic or lecture style of 18%
31%
meeting
15%
Presenter slide decks 17%
15%
Videos of presentations post-event on demand 17%
15%
eLearning modules 17%
Dedicated online portal hosting 15%

17%
28%
13%
10%
Physical on-site exhibitions 7%
10%
10%
Training tools 10%
8%
Videos on demand 7%
8%
Polls & voting 3%
8%
Conference highlights (condition based) 10%
8%
Live case study discussions 14%
5%
Written/printed proceedings documents 10%
5%
Other video contentdocuments 10%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Features perceived as being most difficult to provide by those in the pharmaceutical

industry are social media, patient involvement, opportunity for HCPs to input on
agenda, discussion forums, and virtual reality or wearable technology, with at least
30% of all pharma and service provider respondents in agreement. Most pharma
respondents (56%) rated use of social media as the most difficult to provide, while
fewer service providers (34%) shared this view. Instead, ‘patient involvement’ was
cited as the most difficult to provide by service providers (59%).
33
Virtual/online access to scientific meetings and their output
When considering whether

to attend a conference or When planning onsite
event, how often do you meetings, how often do you
investigate whether you can consider the opportunities
get virtual or online access to for virtual or online access by
the sessions and materials? healthcare professionals?
Healthcare professionals (Fig. 50) Pharmaceutical / Service providers (Fig. 50)
HCP Pharma Service providers
41%
40%
33% 33%
30% 28%
24%
23% 23%
20%
20%
16% 15%
13%
11%
10% 10%
10%
2%
0%
Always Usually Sometimes Occasionally Never
When deciding whether to attend a meeting, 57% of HCPs

reported to always or usually consider the opportunities
for virtual/online access. This compared to just one third of
pharma respondents but two thirds of service providers who
reported always or usually considering provision of virtual/
online access.
Key insight
When deciding whether to attend
a meeting, 57% of HCPs always or
usually consider the opportunities
for virtual/online access.
34
Do you believe virtual Do you believe that provision
or online events to be a of virtual or online events is
valuable alternative to an effective alternative to
onsite meetings? onsite meetings?
Healthcare professionals Pharmaceutical Service providers
81%
80%
75%
70%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
25%
20% 19%
30%
10%
0%
Yes No
The majority (over two thirds) of all HCP and industry survey
respondents agreed that virtual/online events are a valuable
alternative to onsite events.
35
How often do you attend or How often do you provide/

participate in virtual events support/deliver virtual
and exhibitions? events and exhibitions?
HCP Pharma Service providers
40%
40%
36%
35%
30% 28% 28%

27%
26% 26%
20% 19%
16%
11%
10%
7%
0%
Frequently (multiple Occasionally (once Rarely (less than Never
times per year) per year) once per year)
Two thirds of HCPs reported attending at least one virtual event

per year. Under half of pharma respondents but nearly two thirds of
service providers supported at least one virtual event per year.
I interact with more events online than in person
40%
Agree
50%
Disagree
10%
Unsure
40% of HCPs reported that
they interacted with more
meetings online than in
person, while 50% reported
that they did not.
36
Medical societies provide sufficient opportunities
to access their events remotely/online
34% 40% 26% More HCPs disagreed that medical societies

provided sufficient opportunities to access
events remotely/online than either agreed or
were unsure.
We have increased virtual/online

access to meetings and their output
65%
26% 9% Two thirds of pharma respondents reported

that they had increased virtual/online access
for HCPs to meetings and their output.
Strategic planning around events in the last year has involved

increased focus on virtual attendance and digital tools
Pharmaceutical
70%
(Fig.56)
15% 15% Almost three quarters of pharma respondents

agreed that, in the last year, their strategic
planning around events had involved increased
focus on virtual attendance and digital tools.
37
We have developed new KPIs to take into

account virtual access to congress output
40% 34% 26%

Of pharma respondents who confirmed
that they support virtual access to
Agree Disagree Unsure congress output, 60% reported that they
either had not developed new KPIs for
these, or were unsure whether they had.
41% confirmed that they had developed
new KPIs.
Would you like to provide/support more

virtual/online event activities?
88% 12%
88% of pharma respondents reported
said yes said no wanting to provide or support more

virtual/online meetings.
Key insight
Two thirds of pharma respondents have
already increased virtual/online access for
HCPs to meetings and their output and
88% want to provide more.
38
What prevents you from providing/supporting
more virtual/online event activities?
Internal lack of confidence in the benefits 61%
Cost/budget 56%
Internal reluctance to change 50%
Regulatory & compliance restrictions 48%
Lack of internal knowledge/skills 44%
Difficulties measuring and understanding

37%
the engagement, value and outcomes
Internal lack of confidence around execution 32%
The complexity 29%
Lack of demand from HCPs 26%
Competing priorities 19%
Live events have more value 19%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
The main reasons cited (by at least half of pharma respondents)

for not supporting more virtual/online event activities were:
internal lack of confidence in the benefits, cost/budget and
internal reluctance to change.
Key insight
Reasons for pharma for not supporting more
virtual/online event activities are mainly
internal: lack of confidence in the benefits,
cost/budget and internal reluctance to change.
39
What benefits do you think virtual/online access to

events offer over physical attendance of events?
Convenience 76%
Time saving 73%
Cost saving for you 71%
Longer-term access to materials 65%
Ability to attend a wider range of events 56%
Cost saving for the industry 48%
Reduce environmental impact 34%
Overall support of your educational 33%

need
Direct interaction with experts 33%
More time to spend on patients 29%
Better access/signposting to sources 27%

of related content
Participation in panel discussions 26%
Larger attendance 26%
Better consumption and retention of 23%

information
Real-time exchange of ideas 22%
Better interaction with experts and 16%

peers
Meeting new people and having 13%
conversation
Stimulation of a live audience 6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Over half of HCPs stated that virtual/online access to

events offers the following benefits – convenience,
time-saving, cost-saving and longer term access
to materials. Less than one quarter reported that the
following are a benefit - stimulation of live audience
interaction, meeting new people, interaction with
experts and peers, or real-time exchange of ideas.
I find online/virtual events more conducive

to learning than live attendance
53% 29% 18%


Almost one third of HCPs agreed that they find
virtual or online events more conducive to
learning, while over half disagreed.
40
How much overall benefit do you think virtual/online
events offer HCPs over physical/onsite events?
All respondents (Fig. 62) Significant benefit Small benefit No benefit Not sure
HCP 38% 43% 9% 11%
Pharmaceutical 43% 45% 7% 7%
Service Providers 50% 37% 7% 6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Over 80% of each group reported some benefit for virtual/online events over onsite events.
Pharma and service providers perceived slightly more value in virtual/online events than HCPs did.
Do you see better overall healthcare professional engagement

metrics for virtual/online event access over onsite access?
Pharmaceutical / Service providers (Fig. 63) Yes No I don’t know
Pharmaceutical 25% 25% 50%
Service Providers 60% 23% 17%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Half of pharma respondents who had provided virtual/online events reported that they did not
know whether the engagement was better for those events than for onsite events. The other half
were split evenly between those who saw better engagement and those who did not. Service
providers reported having more knowledge of the engagement metrics than pharma respondents
did (only 17% did not know) and 60% stated that the metrics for virtual/online meetings were
more positive than those for onsite ones.
Key insight
Service providers have significantly better
awareness of engagement metrics for virtual/
online meetings than pharma and 60%
reported that metrics are more positive for
virtual meetings than onsite meetings.
41
For the pharmaceutical industry, what do you

consider to be the benefits of virtual/online events
over onsite events?
Pharmaceutical / Service providers (Fig. 64)
81%
Reach a wider geographical audience
76%
79%
Save on cost and resource
84%
72%
New ways to reach and engage customers
73%
70%
Reach increased number of HCPs 73%
66%
Reach a wider multidisciplinary audience
54%
64%
Save on time
59%
Advanced metrics/measurement 58%

of engagement 62%
Opportunity to reinforce messaging in 55%

multiple ways/formats 68%
51%
Ability to measure engagement and ROI
62%
43%
Repurpose and maximise value of assets
59%
Better understanding of the value and 43%
interaction with different content/features 32%
42%
Better follow-up opportunities
59%
Ability to use behavioural technology 42%

(data driven personalised interactions) 51%
Ability to adapt to HCP behaviour and 40%

interests 46%
40%
Potential to build trust
27%
40%
Potential for increased ROI/ROE
43%
38%
Better targeting potential
43%
30%
Potential for better patient outcomes
24%
21%
Ability to identify key influencers
30%
21%
Advertising potential
19%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
42
Over half of all pharma company respondents agreed to 9 of
the possible 20 listed benefits of online events over onsite
events, while over half of service provider respondents agreed
to 12 of the 20. Of most benefit, with over three quarters of
both respondent groups agreeing, were reaching a ‘wider
geographic audience’ and ‘saving on cost and resource’.
Service providers perceived ‘follow up opportunities’ and

‘repurposing/maximising the value of assets’ as being a greater
benefit of online events than the pharmaceutical respondent
group did.
Reported of least benefit by pharma was the ‘ability to identify

key influencers’ and ‘advertising potential’, with under one
quarter of respondents agreeing to these.
43
Digital portals for access to scientific meetings and events
Would you use an online portal that allows you to

access content from conferences and other events
when convenient for you?
Healthcare professionals (Fig.65)
48% 39% 13%
Yes and I have used Yes but I have not used No - I do not value
this type of portal
such a portal such a portal before
Most HCP respondents (87%) stated that they would use an

online portal that provides access to content from medical
conferences and events. More than half of those had used
such a portal.
44
I would prefer to access conference materials
throughout the year rather than limited to the
duration of the event
81%Agree
12%
Disagree
7%
Unsure
81% of HCPs agreed that they prefer
to access conference materials
throughout the year rather than be
limited to the duration of the event.
Do you believe that access to information and

discussion beyond the event helps you apply
new medical approaches more quickly?
90% 10%
90% of HCPs agreed that access to
information and discussion beyond
said yes said no a scientific meeting helps them to

apply new medical approaches
more quickly.
45
How much focus do you give to discussion and

dissemination of information for healthcare
professionals beyond the live event?
Pharmaceutical / Service providers (Fig. 69) High Medium Low / None
Pharmaceutical 31% 51% 18%
Service Providers 38% 43% 19%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Under one third of pharma respondents and just over one third
of service providers reported a high focus on discussion and
dissemination of information for HCPs beyond a live event.
Almost 20% of both groups reported low or no focus.
Key insight
81% of HCPs prefer to access conference
materials throughout the year rather than
be limited to the duration of the event and
90% believe that this helps them to apply
new medical approaches more quickly.
Only one third of pharma respondents
reported providing such access.
46
How do you value the following content
and features of online event portals?
Healthcare professionals (Fig. 70) High Medium Low
Conference highlights (concise 64% 31% 5%

overviews of key learnings)
References and links to relevant materials 59% 38% 4%
Expert summaries 53% 41% 6%
Expert/opinion leader interview videos 50% 42% 8%
Interactive case studies 49% 44% 7%
CME accreditation 46% 33% 21%
Slide decks 46% 47% 7%
Feedback on questions asked during the event 38% 52% 10%
Opportunities to engage with peers

33% 47% 20%
before, during and after the event
Formatted for multiple devices & screen size 32% 48% 19%
(including mobile phone)
Testimonial videos 16% 44% 40%
Social media feeds 7% 37% 57%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Of those HCP respondents who reported using online portals to access output from
events, over half attributed high or medium value to eleven of the twelve features
listed. Considered of highest value were congress highlights, references and links
to relevant materials and expert summaries. Attributed low value by over half of
respondents were social media feeds.
Rate your level of trust in an online

event hub supplied by the following:
Healthcare professionals (Fig. 71) Very high High Medium Low Very low
1%
A medical society or association 43% 40% 15%
1%
Government/healthcare authority 31% 38% 22% 1%

7%
1%
An independent portal with grant funding
9% 37% 41% 11%
from a pharmaceutical company
A pharmaceutical company 6% 26% 38% 21% 9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
HCP respondents reported least trust for event hubs provided by pharma (with
30% reporting low or very low trust) but more trust for independent portals that are
grant funded by pharma (just 12% reporting low or very low trust). They reported
highest level of trust for online event portals provided by medical societies and
associations (with just 2% reporting low or very high trust).
47
Do you support provision of online portals

designed to assist HCP access to output
from conferences and events?
Pharmaceutical / Service providers (Fig. 72) Yes No
Pharmaceutical 69% 31%
Service Providers 60% 40%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Most pharma and service provider respondents stated that

they supported the provision of online portals designed to
assist access to output from conferences and other events.
What are your primary reasons for not supporting

provision of online portals designed to aid healthcare
professional access to output from events?
27% Other priorities for budget/resource

21% Lack of HCP demand/engagement
18% We’ve not fully considered such opportunities
18% Regulatory/compliance concerns
12% Fear that our audience may consider it too promotional
4% It doesn’t align with our core strategy or objectives
For those pharma respondents who reported not supporting

the provision of online event portals (31% - see Fig. 72),
the biggest reasons were other priorities for the budget,
followed by a perceived lack of HCP demand.
48
Do you invest more in your own portals or independent
portals designed to support healthcare professional
access to output from events?
71%
Our own
29%
Independent
Of those pharma respondents that
support provision of online portals to
support HCPs with access to output from
events (69% - see Fig.72), the majority
portals invest more in their own portals than
portals independent portals.
Key insight
HCPs least trust event hubs provided by
pharma (with 30% reporting low or very
low trust), while 71% of pharma invest
more in their own portals than independent
portals.
Do you work more on the provision of bespoke/pharma-owned

portals or independent portals designed to support healthcare
professional access to output from events?
Service providers (Fig. 75)
68%
Bespoke/
32%
Independent
Of the service provider respondents who
had supported provision of online portals
that provide HCPs with access to output
from events (60% - see Fig.72), two
portals thirds worked more on pharma-owned
pharma-owned portals than independent ones.
portals
49
Which of the following content and features exist in

the online event portals you provide or support?
71%
Slide decks
80%
Conference highlights (concise 71%

overviews of key learnings) 80%
63%
Expert/opinion leader interview videos
80%
49%
Formatted for multiple devices &
screen size (including mobile phone) 72%
44%
Expert summaries
68%
44%
References and links
to relevant materials 92%
39%
Testimonial videos
44%
27%
CME accreditation
44%
24%
Interactive case studies
56%
24%
Feedback on questions
asked during the event 36%
22%
Opportunities to engage with peers
before, during and after the event 36%
15%
Social media feeds
32%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Of pharma respondents supporting provision of online portals

that feature content from scientific meetings, most include
slide decks, conference highlights and expert/opinion
leader interview videos. Provided least (by less than one
quarter of pharma respondents) were social media feeds,
opportunities to engage with peers during and after the event,
feedback on questions posed during the event and interactive
cases studies.
While responses by service providers were similar, they were

more likely to include each of the options, and more than twice
as likely to include references and links to relevant content,
interactive case studies, and social media feeds.
50
Digital tools and platforms have increased the
lifespan/life-cycle of our congress activities
72% Agree
8%
Disagree
19%
Unsure
Almost three quarters of pharma respondents stated that digital tools and
platforms had increased the lifespan on their congress activity. A further 19%
were unsure whether this was the case and only 8% stated that it was not the
case for them.
51
Industry funding for scientific meetings
In terms of priority for budget, where does

educating healthcare professionals through
scientific meetings come on a scale of 1 to 10?
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
85% of pharma respondents rated educating HCPs through medical meetings and
events as 6 or above out of 10 in terms of priority for budget, with over one third
providing a rating of 8 or more.
How has your spend on the following

changed in the last 12 months?
Pharmaceutical (Fig. 79) Increased significantly Increased slightly Remained the same
Reduced slightly Reduced significantly Stopped
2%
Digital provision of content post event 14% 39% 34%
9% 2%
5%
Live streaming of events 12% 30% 42% 7%
5%
2%
Your own channels 11% 36% 40%
9% 2%
13%
Onsite events 10% 10% 42% 25%
0%
Grant funding (IME) for 7% 7% 60% 10% 10% 7%

independent event portals
2%
Sponsorship (non-IME) for 4% 18% 56%
independent event portals 16% 4%
Branded standalone events 4% 15% 48% 19% 4% 10%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Over 40% of pharma respondents reported an increase in spend in the past 12

months on ‘digital provision of content post event’, ‘live streaming of events’
and provision of their ‘own channels’. Over 30% of respondents reported a
reduction of spend on ‘onsite events’ and ‘branded standalone events’. Funding of
independent event portals was reported as seeing little change.
52
How do you think pharma spend on the
following has changed in the last 12 months?
Service providers (Fig. 80) Increased significantly Increased slightly Remained the same
Reduced slightly Reduced significantly Stopped
0%
Digital provision of content post event 18% 52% 30% 0%
0%
0%
Live streaming of events 9% 65% 26% 0%
0%
Pharma owned channels 7% 30% 47% 10% 3% 3%
Onsite events 0% 24% 38% 24% 15% 0%
Grant funding (IME) for 6% 29% 39% 13% 10% 3%

Independent channels
Sponsoring event content on 6% 44% 34% 9% 6% 0%

independent channels
Branded standalone events 0% 9% 41% 25% 22% 3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Service providers perceived a greater increase in spend on ‘digital provision of

content post event’ and ‘live streaming of events’ than was reported by pharma
respondents, with over 70% believing there to be an increase, versus under
40% of pharma who reported an increase. They also perceived a greater
increase in spend on independent channels and a greater reduction in spend on
branded standalone events than was reported by pharma.
What factors have influenced change

in spend on events in general?
27% Change of strategy in favour of other activities

21% Change in budget
18% Changing regulations/restrictions
18% Change in digital capabilities
12% Other reasons
The primary reasons cited for change in spend around events,

included change in strategy and change in budget, with
changes in digital capabilities and regulations/restrictions also
being significant factors.
53
What are your views on pharmaceutical company

involvement with scientific meetings?
Healthcare professionals (Fig. 82) Agree Disagree Unsure
I value attending independent meetings

that are supported by unrestricted grants 75% 11% 14%
from the pharmaceutical industry
I expect the pharmaceutical industry

to provide medical education 70% 21% 9%
content at events
I expect the pharmaceutical industry to 63% 22% 16%

support funding of symposia and other
types of medical education meeting
I expect the pharmaceutical industry 60% 25% 16%

to support funding for medical society
meetings and congress
Pharma-sponsored symposia at
congress are usually too brand 58% 23% 19%
focussed
I value pharma-sponsored
symposia for the drug information 57% 24% 19%
they disseminate
I expect the pharmaceutical

industry to run standalone medical 41% 36% 22%
meetings
I lack trust in events funded by 31% 46% 22%

pharmaceutical companies
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Three quarters of HCPs agreed that they value attending independent meetings
that are supported by unrestricted grants by pharma. Over half also expected
pharma to provide medical education at events, support funding of symposia,
medical society meetings and congress, and value pharma-sponsored symposia for
the drug information they disseminate. One third of HCPs reported that they lack
trust in events funded by pharma, and more than half stated that pharma-sponsored
symposia are usually too brand focused.
Key insight
Three quarters of HCPs value independent
meetings that are supported by
unrestricted grants by pharma.
54
What do you value most about industry-funded
events (whether onsite or online)?
Content “The opportunity to

keep up to date with
latest treatments
54% and research.”
“Great forum for

Networking sharing knowledge and
10% networking with other
health care professionals.”
Credibility “Correct and unbiased

scientific information
9% provided in logical way.”
Accessibility “Web meetings are

7% very efficient.”
Professional “Presentation of
information that provides
development
stimulus for continuing
7%
education of my own.”
Cost “The additional funding

can sometimes make
Related
the event more
7%
comfortable.”
Miscellaneous “I think it has always

6% been the samples :).”
55
Responses informing Fig.83
Professional development
Miscellaneous
Accessibility
Cost related
Networking
Credibility
Content
(Answers are presented below exactly as provided, with the exception of spelling corrections.)
The chance to listen to highly appreciated speakers, novelty of information
The dissemination of product knowledge
Presentation of information that provides stimulus for continuing education of my own.
Independence
Subsidy
Good speakers
The opportunity to discuss their findings
Generally very good speakers
Online access
More focused
Accessibility and provision of food.
Nothing. I don't trust the industry. They have proven too often to not be trustworthy, sorry.
I would to value something ...the food, the gifts, but that is for the fun not the knowledge.
Updated information
Well-known and expert speakers focusing on the most important points of the topic along with possibly introducing a drug
An opportunity to learn and travel
I value the medical information they provide.
Detailed information
Good speakers and investigators
Detailed information about products
Personal experiences and tips from an expert
Correct and unbiased scientific information provided in logical way
Quality of the presentations
CPD recognition
Great forum for sharing knowledge and networking with other hcps
Access to free opinions about collateral effects and post marketing data
Ability to interact
Comprehensive and independent scientific information
There are moves internationally to ensure greater disclosure of gifts and educational events for doctors paid for by pharmaceutical
manufacturers. However, there is no agreement on appropriate standards of disclosure. In Australia, since mid-2007, there has been
mandatory reporting of details of every industry-sponsored event, including the costs of any hospitality provided.
Networking
I need them to give balanced information
Not presenting data regarding 1 drug only
Multidisciplinary aspects of a subject
Web meetings are very efficient
They have budget for practicable workshops
Scientific content
Evidenced based conclusions
Variety of the agenda
Interactivity
It is a way of finding out what's new, networking without too much expense for my organisation.
Dissemination of latest advancements
Everything is arranged by them
The opportunity to access their program and format of conferences
The new material and the opportunity to interact with those that performed the studies
Continued support
Sharing new ideas
Non-promotional scientific content bringing together the issues regarding a disease and its management, in usually well-presented format, and
developed and delivered by well-informed experts in the field.
Access to information, experience and experts
56
Professional development
Miscellaneous
Accessibility
Cost related
Networking
Credibility
Content
The opportunity to keep up to date with latest treatments and research. The opportunity to learn best practice from my peers
Their support for scientific as well as extracurricular factors.
I don't value industry funded events
I can get the news about the pharmaceutical market sooner
They have good international speakers
I value the opportunity to get practical training/ course of my interest/ specialty
CME accredited
Advisory board
The ability to receive information from large professional and keep me updated in various areas of knowledge
Participant selection
Information about new products and devices.
Free food
You get to learn about the data related to their drugs (but this could be biased)
Often offer most current information
Information about new therapies
We receive up to date information from a wide range of experts. Also provide live practical situations to give us a better understanding
I think it has always been the samples :)
Update of knowledge and sharing of opinion
Novelties
Meet professionals
The opportunity to expand detailed awareness of important new products
Honest dissemination of evidence based medical practice. Clear current literature and
practice rather than product directed and narrowly focused information.
The unbiased information they provide.
Understand how clinical data will be used in Commercialisation
CME credit
Reduce cost for participants
The variety of subjects available
Content
Prefer intimate local events with CE
If the event is focused in scientific education
They are better organised
The possibility to meet peers and build a professional network
Disease focused events
Personal interaction
The education component
Unbiased
The fact that they are at the front-lines of development.
Ability to learn something new that is relevant to my practice.
Drug information
Dissemination of new information relevant to my practice.
Provide grant
Appreciate funding of the symposium/learning and some info about drugs - not too much though as reps. And Carry on for ages
Gaining knowledge and latest developments
The additional funding can sometimes make the event more comfortable, with additional " luxuries" i.e. better food, than without
They are informative
Discussion of new data
Better organised and formatted and accessible as more money to do it. visually more attractive usually has Medical writers involved accessible
and convenient don’t always trust the content. I don’t do talks for pharmaceutical companies anymore because they restrict slides and content.
57
Obstacles to healthcare professional access and industry provision of scientific meetings
What prevents you from accessing

more events in the following ways?
Healthcare professionals (Fig. 84) Onsite events Live streamed events Online access to materials post event
11%
They lack value for me 22%
13%
12%
Lack confidence/trust in them 32%
11%
15%
I prefer to access the 23%
information in other ways 14%
29%
32%
Lack of provision/availability
29%
44%
Regulations around 15%
funding my attendance 9%
52%
Prioritising time with patients 30%
12%
52%
Prioritising time with family 30%
15%
62%
Time 37%
13%
71%
Prioritising time for workload 43%
15%
76%
Cost 21%
12%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
What do you think prevents healthcare professionals

from accessing more events in the following ways?
Pharmaceutical (Fig. 85) Onsite events Live streamed events Online access to materials post event
20%
The lack of value for HCPs 25%
31%
9%
34%
22%
They prefer to access the
44%
information in other ways 31%
22%
Lack of provision/availability 38%
27%
63%
Regulations around
9%
funding their attendance 5%
61%
22%
52%
23%
67%
22%
81%
Time 38%
27%
63%
Cost 6%
2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
58
What do you think prevents healthcare professionals
from accessing more events in the following ways?
Service providers (Fig. 86) Onsite events Live streamed events Online access to materials post event
14%
The lack of value for HCPs 36%
32%
6%
36%
18%
They prefer to access the information in 42%
other ways 26%
36%
52%
Lack of provision/availability
46%
64%
Regulations around 12%
funding my attendance 8%
76%
20%
72%
18%
86%
28%
96%
Time 44%
20%
84%
Cost 20%
14%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
The factors preventing HCPs from accessing scientific meetings vary significantly
depending upon the mode of access. The obstacles to accessing onsite events are
significantly greater in general than for lived streamed or online access. For onsite
events, cost and time were reported as major obstacles, with around three quarters
of HCPs citing each as a factor. For live-streamed events, time and prioritising
workload were the most cited, with over one third stating that these prevent them
from participating more frequently. For online access to material post event, lack of
provision was the most cited factor with almost twice as many HCPs citing this as
any other potential factor.
On the whole, pharma respondents accurately predicted the factors affecting

HCPs accessing meetings. For onsite events however, pharma respondents
overestimated the challenge that HCPs perceive for regulations around funding,
with 63% thinking this prevents HCPs attending, compared to just 44% of HCPs who
stated that was the case. Also, a higher percentage of HCPs cited cost as a major
factor.
For live streamed events and online access to materials post event, pharma
industry respondents think that lack of confidence/trust in them is a significant
preventative factor for HCPs, while this is not the case - HCPs, reported lack of
availability as the main factor (Fig. 84).
On the whole, service providers accurately predicted the factors affecting HCPs
accessing meetings, however, they overestimated the factors preventing HCPs from
accessing materials online post event. They correctly recognised lack of provision
as a significant factor, but 36% cited lack of confidence/trust as a factor compared
to only 11% of HCPs who stated this to be the case.
59
What are you doing to try and overcome the challenges

for healthcare professionals in accessing events?
Pharmaceutical (Fig. 87) (Answers are presented below exactly as provided, with the exception of spelling corrections.)
Very little at this time as I am banging my head against a brick wall until I have good solid data to use to influence internal stakeholders
Understanding the perception and the value of these meetings
Better understand the ROI
Internal training to encourage transformation. Build in protocols and workflows
Educate
Beginning the process to provide focus in this area in terms of an overall HCP experience at our events.
Digital training to explain the value and the available tools and KPIs internally.
Help change internal meeting owner perception that live meetings are always more valuable, and to offer a range of technology options
to choose from, which meeting owners have confidence in around execution, and which can report out on tangible engagement metrics.
Further research showing HCP desire to engage in virtual programs (rather than have to spend several days traveling/attending live
sessions) may help to dispel some of this perception.
Experiment and showcase successful examples
Make the state of the art on multichannel
Awareness, culture
We have now set up a Digital Marketing division as we understand this capability does not necessarily reside within Marketing. However,
there is internal and external reluctance to change. In South Africa, bandwidth is a huge issue meaning that live streaming is out particularly
as HCPs don't want to take an hour out of their day to participate vs seeing patients. We need to provide content on demand but many
HCPs are laggards as are the pharma companies!
Simplification of internal processes, more efficient team planning, better understanding of customer needs
Developing playbook
Digitalization of events is organized mainly through the European/global office. There is little done at the moment at the local affiliate level
but this might change in the near future.
Ongoing research of new opportunities and discussions with colleagues to drive the change in mentality.
Gaining experience and showing the good results
We provide metrics on activities we did in order to convince senior management and the countries.
Education, case studies, examples
Organize successful events to show that it is possible and add value
60
What are you and your clients doing to overcome reasons
preventing healthcare professionals from accessing more
onsite and/or digital events?
Service providers (Fig. 88) (Answers are presented below exactly as provided, with the exception of spelling corrections.)
Wherever practical, virtual meetings are considered as an option. virtual formats can offer a great supplement to advisory meetings and
scientific symposia, but can still be constrained by the time demands and need for flexibility to fit with multiple physicians' needs at the
same time. doodle polls can help set up optimal times but cannot overcome the usual challenges of coordinating mutually convenient
times. ultimately, where discussion and cross-fertilization of ideas is needed, on-demand options provide a poorer substitute for live events.
We always include digital options in proposals as it is widely recognised that time constraints prevent clinicians attending some physical
meetings. we do run digital events but pharma clients are wary of additional spend if they have already provided a physical meeting. often
meetings are arranged around key congresses too which makes them easier for see to attend. digital events, particularly live events are
not that popular despite the ability for more customers to attend or to view on demand. there is concern over being able to drive sufficient
audience numbers to these events
Virtual attendance
Tailor the event to the needs of the hcps by conducting surveys
Sensible and considerate scheduling at physical events, with no more time out of the clinic than necessary (e.g. for slide previews/
presentations etc.).
Research shows online information is believed to be less credible by hcps than information or content they access face to face. so we work
to put strategies in place to maximise the credibility and trust in the information
Reducing time of webinars from 1hr to 40mins max
Providing true on demand access from any device at any time
Providing shorter, more targeted programs in multiple formats.
Piloting events for a wider roll out
Onsite events are streamed live and the content is captured to allow those who could not attend live to receive the education on-demand.
papers, posters and various other supporting materials are made available for 6mos-1yr following the live event.
Moving to non-real time online virtual events. it more convenient and accessible, allows for greater engagement/value, and with a
recognizable, quantifiable cost-savings. huge advantages.
Looking to new technology to make the experience just as engaging but in time and cost efficient ways
If they understand there is value for them in the event they will always try to find a way to attend.
Ensuring that events can be streamed, or that online access to materials (if not the live event recording) are available after the event.
Easily reachable multichannel approach condensed information
Digital: family-friendly scheduling - after 8 pm. inclusion of non-promotional training/content.
Develop content and format in collaboration with hcps to ensure credibility, appropriate and relevant content that meets current and
understood needs; ensure that digital formats are easily accessed in developing markets, including utilising mobile formats; use locally
relevant case studies and kols
Creating short and concise pieces of content making content engaging and fun to consume
CME accreditation to make the events offer real value to delegates. also, peer-to-peer learning.
Assessing multiple broadcasting / recording models
Allow more ways and times to access the materials and produce more summaries
61
Considering provision of events, which of

the following pose a challenge for you?
Pharmaceutical (Fig. 89) Onsite events Live streamed events Online access to materials post event
68%
Budget 46%
29%
50%
Maintaining engagement 36%
beyond the event 32%
50%
Industry regulations & codes of practice 50%
48%
34%
Compliance/legal 59%
55%
34%
Extending the the value and life-cycle
29%
of congress/symposium output 21%
32%
Integrating social media 45%
43%
27%
Understanding the value and outcomes 54%
48%
25%
Lack of digital opportunities
48%
offered by medical societies 38%
25%
Restrictions imposed by medical societies 32%
29%
25%
Integrating sales force 43%
38%
23%
Understanding the needs of the audience 46%
45%
23%
Building audience 59%
41%
21%
Understanding customer
45%
needs and behaviour 39%
21%
Providing a personalised
52%
user experience 41%
20%
Achieving audience reach 45%
36%
20%
Harnessing new technologies 52%
43%
Concerns about adverse event reporting 18%

and off label promotion by chat /social 48%
34%
media participants during meetings
16%
Defining KPIs (key performance indicators) 39%
36%
14%
Execution of new approaches 36%
30%
13%
Accessing the right
29%
knowledge and expertise 21%
11%
Internal support/buy-in for new approaches 48%
45%
11%
Aligning strategy with objectives 36%
21%
7%
Understanding the options
30%
and opportunities 25%
Integrating networking 7%
43%
opportunities like chat rooms 34%
Designing and replicating 5%

32%
a successful approach 16%
4%
Identifying and securing the third
30%
party support required 30%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
62
For pharma, the challenges are very different for onsite
meetings than for live streaming and post event hosting
of materials. In general, live streaming poses the greatest
challenges for pharma. Respondents cited 21 out of the 25
possible obstacles as applying more to the provision of live
streaming and digital hosting of content post-event than they
did to the provision of the onsite event.
At least half of respondents cited the following as a challenge

for live streaming: compliance/legal, understanding value/
outcomes, building audience, providing a personalised user
experience and harnessing new technologies. For digital
hosting of materials post event, the main challenge is
compliance/legal, cited by 55% of respondents. For provision
of onsite events, the main challenges, cited by at least half
of all pharma respondents, is budget (68%), maintaining
engagement beyond the event (50%) and industry regulations/
codes of practice (50%).
Key insight
For HCPs, the obstacles to accessing
onsite events are significantly greater than
for live streamed or online access. For
industry provision, the opposite is the case.
63
What are your greatest challenges regarding

meetings and events (onsite or online)?
64
Budget, internal human resource/workload, time limitations, competing events, and compliance/legal
Internal obstacles and inertia
Assistance. not enough audience. lack of interest
Differing regulations and compliance considerations across countries
Ensuring the content has a purpose after the fact and can be leveraged by our HCPs even if they aren't able to attend the live event
Logistics, Budget impact, Quality content, content generation, analytics
transparency reporting and enhancing the attendee experience (whether live or virtual)
Deliver valuable information and tools to HCPs to allow increase reach and impact while ensuring compliance of activities
Greatest challenge is the inability to control the content so Med Affairs wants to review the entire video/podcast to ensure its inline,
creates huge time delays and can often impact on content if they deem certain commentary inappropriate
Understanding customers’ needs to provide best valuable events
Budget
Marketing education
Costs, compliance/regulations, limited attendance, not matching customer needs
Delivering something of true value to our target audience.
And assuming we have done this ensuring that we can leverage this credibility / support to help us achieve our commercial priorities
Competitive environment with lots of events being organized by various pharma. HCPs are flooded with similar offers and do not know
which to choose from. There is also sometimes a lack of trust of events organized by pharma. It is often appreciated to have multi-
sponsored events organized by a 3rd party which is independent from pharma companies.
Compliance/legal
Other competing interests by HCP
Regulations
Compliance, legal and internal buy in by senior management
An umbrella approach, not targeting HCP
Internal lack of willingness to change and inability to see that we need to provide different things than in the past
65
overcome these challenges?
What are you doing to try to
66
Enforce a behavioral shift to go digital
Understand what motivates HCP to participate in these meetings
Streamline and common interpretation where possible
Explore new options and gain customer insight into how they want to receive that information.
We're trying to integrate these events in our CRM
Build deep HCP understanding
Align on compliance from the start
Partner with appropriate third parties
Trying to educate Med Affairs and Regulatory around the concept of co-creation, we put it out there but what the HCPs do with the content
we can't control!
Engage other internal stakeholders for support
Insight gathering through sale force, MSL, advisory boards, market research
Educating marketing
looking to any sources I can to help me
Ongoing discussion with colleagues
See above last sentence, use 3rd party.
Listen carefully to HCP
None, as it is the law
Collaborate with sales forces
HCP journeys, to show how much they use social media, mobile etc.
67
What are your greatest challenges regarding

meetings and events (onsite or online)?
68
Onsite meetings are enormously expensive and require weeks/months of planning and limited only then to those available. by the time
you execute, some of the business need has become irrelevant. timely engagement matters. live broadcast are great but still require a
window of time (hours usually) that works for everyone. when meetings happen overtime (few days or weeks) you cater to the needs of
the audience in terms of availability and accessibility online through multiple devices. the online discussion forums allow for participation by
all invitees and very deep rich discussion and insights.
Technology; reach; relevance; ensuring ongoing value of content and event
Providing value to hcps aligned to client objectives.
Previous question did not work properly. there are challenges with all three approaches, depending on the content and discussion required.
live streaming can be especially hard to develop audiences for, and is notoriously difficult to track properly for true engagement. online
resources are very much restricted by regulations (where content is truly educational - because of the risk of non-compliant/off-label
discussions) or professional society reluctance to partner with pharmaceutical companies.
Post-event amplification
Lack of appetite for digital from client side, often due to legal/compliance/it concerns.
Inviting the hcps who would benefit from the content the most
Industry concerns regarding compliance and perceived inability to support a particular project.
Getting enough funding for innovative programs and multiple assessments post activity
Gaining budget holder approval
Gaining attendance
Cost, regulatory, compliance
Cost, audience size, engagement
Compliance while making the event still relevant to the audience building trust/raising awareness
Compliance
Audience numbers aligning speaker content with client requirements
Attendance and engagement
69
overcome these challenges?
What are you doing to try to
70
Work closely with clients and discuss alternative solutions (both in tech but also in compliance)
Virtual attendance and shorter sessions
Using more media outlets
Third-party hosting
Segmentation
Prove how new technologies are changing the way we digest content and reach wider audiences
Investigate new formats and assessment strategies
Integrate all stakeholders
Improve quality of presentations and level of interactivity
Fire-wall for post-meeting content; consent forms; pre-meeting surveys
Encourage sales force buy in to attract audience encourage clients to let us brief speakers more thoroughly
Discussions with relevant stakeholders are key, but often insurmountable in current environment.
Demonstrate value of different approaches based on experience with other clients.
Create integrated strategies to engage with customers
Continuous educational conversations to make them understand changes and advances in digital technology
Companies are standardizing on the technology so it reflects their rules of engagement. they take time and best practices to create sops
around the technology solution to optimize it for engaging users. user feedback has been extremely positive as companies recognize the
importance of assimilating engagement in the day in the life of a physician, payor, or patient. having engaged 1000's of users across the
globe, feedback supports they like this format and eager to participate in more industry sponsored activities this way.
Co-creation sessions
Being more creative, consulting KOLs, engaging clients, building good relationships with professional/scientific societies
Addressing concerns directly with industry compliance teams in conjunction with sales, marketing and others.
71
Demographics of study participants
What is your profession?
50% Specialist
11% General practitioner
9% Nurse
6% Pharmacist
3% Allied health professional
3% Medical communications
2% Research / Academic
1% Medical student/ Intern
1% Dentist
0.7% Biomedical science
0.7% Microbiologist
0.7% Psychologist
0.3% Midwife
12% Other
Half of HCP survey participants were specialists, 11%

general practitioners, 9% nurses, 6% pharmacists and the
remaining 14% worked across other medical professions.
Where do you practice medicine?

Europe
64%
Middle East / Africa
5%
North America
14%
Asia
9%
Central and South America

2% Rest of world
6%
Almost two thirds of HCP respondents were based in Europe,

14% in North America and 14% in Asia, Middle East or Africa.
72
Please select your core medical
specialty and any other areas of interest
Other
y
log
Ear
un o
,N
Ha
mm
ose
em
Ph
al I
ato
ys
an d
Sp
nic
io t
l
or
og
he
t
Thr
/Cli
Ge
sM
y
rap
og
ro
oat
rgy
ol
e
nt
ya
Pa
dic
at
o
Ra
A lle
m
th
n
o
in
d d
gy
ol
er
e
io
og
D
/G
Ob lo eh
y
gy
er
an
st ab
iat
et
d
ric
i
ric
lita
Cl
M
s
s/G
in
en
tio
ic
's yn
al
n
Me He ae
La
dic alt co NS
bo
al h/A log C
nd
ra
Ge
Tro n d ya ya
to
pic ne r o nd og
r ol
ry
al M ti c lo g
s eu
7%
y W N
ed om
6%
Ana icin en
est e 's 1%
hes
1%
iolo He
1%
gy alt
1%
6%
h
1% %
1
1
Prev 1%%
entiv
e Me 1%
dicin 1% 5%
e
l Me dicine
Interna
1%
Critical 2%
Care/Inte
nsive C 2%
are 5%
2% Healthcare
Rheumatology 2%
professionals
5%
2% (Fig.96) Genera
l Practic
y 2% e/Primar
Endocrinolog y Care
5%
2%
gy 2%
almolo 4%
Ophth 2%
ine 2%
edic
4%
2%
Inf
n cy M ect
2%
e
erg iou
4%
Em s
3%
Dis
3%
3%
3%
ine eas
dic es
e Me
ti v
llia
Pa
gy
o lo
un Pa
m e
Im di
at
rs
ric
Gastroenterology and
rde
s
ry
Urologica
e
so
rg
h
Su
Di
alt
He
tal
lth
Re
ele
al
l Hea
sp
l
xu
and Kidne
sk
ira
Se
lo
tor
Menta
cu
y
us
ogy
Card
M
col
y Diseas
hiatry
Hepatology
iolo
On
gy
Psyc
es
HCP survey respondents worked across over 40 medical specialties.
In which decade were you born?

Healthcare professionals (Fig. 97) Before 1950 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s onward
7%
4% 22% 32% 33%
2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Almost three quarters of HCP respondents were born after 1960 (therefore under fifty-seven
years of age at the time of study) and 42% were born after 1970 (therefore under
forty-seven years of age). Less than 10% of respondents would be defined as ‘millennials’.
73
What type of organisation do you work for?
55% Pharmaceutical company

17% Medical communications agency
8% Consultancy
6% Media or advertising agency
3% Medical publisher
3% Technology provider (e.g. CRM, app. developer)
2% Digital platform provider
1% Medical devices
1% Medical education
0.5% Medical association or society
0.5% Med tech
2% Other
55% of all industry respondents worked within

pharma organisations. Of the remaining 45%, termed
services providers, 17% reported working in medical
communications agencies, 8% in pharma consultancy
and 20% in other types of organisation.
What is your role?
34% Commercial – marketing

27% Medical
15% Multichannel
8% Digital/technology
3% Commercial – sales
2% Communications
1% Research
1% Strategy
10% Other
37% of pharma respondents reported being in a

commercial role, the majority in marketing. A further 27%
reported being in a medical role and 23% reported working
in a multichannel or digital/technology focussed role.
74
What is your main geographical
area of responsibility?
42% Global
24% Europe
12% National level – in Europe
8% North America
3% Latin America
2% Rest of World
1% National level outside of Europe
9% Other
42% of pharma and service provider respondents

had global responsibilities. A further 36% had
responsibilities in Europe, and 11% in the Americas.
In which decade were you born?

Pharmaceutical / Service providers (Fig. 101) Before1950 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s onward
0%
31% 39% 20% 8%
Pharmaceutical 2%
Service Providers 23%

3% 5% 26% 41%
3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Two thirds of both pharma and service provider respondents were born since 1970
(making them under forty-seven years of age at the time of study). Approximately one
quarter of respondents could be defined as ‘millennials’.
75
Conclusions
Features and tools

HCPs value almost all the listed features associated with
scientific meetings and particularly live case study discussion,
videos of presentations post-event/on demand, training tools,
CME/eCME accreditation and eLearning modules. Least valued
are social media and event hashtags.
While some of the features that HCPs highly value are also cited by
pharma as ones they had provided in the past 12 months (including
CME/ accreditation, presenter slide decks, discussion forums, real-
Value and frequency time Q&A with faculty and conference highlights), overall there is a
significant lack of correlation between the value that HCPs attribute
to features/tools related to meetings and those which pharma
This study indicates that scientific meetings continue to be one supply. There is also a lack of correlation between the features
of the most important methods of delivering and acquiring new that HCPs perceive as lacking in provision and those which pharma
knowledge and skills. would like to provide more of.
Medical society conferences and satellite symposia are the most Features for which demand appears to exceed supply are
attended type of scientific meeting, with three quarters of HCP largely digital and include videos on demand, live streaming,
respondents attending one or more of both per year, and a third online portals for hosting materials from the event, global access
attending three or more. Nearly two thirds had also attended at via any device and the ability to like, rate, review, share and
least one pharma led symposium and one live-streamed event in comment on event materials. However, there are also digital tools
the last 12 months. for which supply does seem to match or exceed demand, including
HCPs value and attend CME accredited meetings significantly apps, polls and voting, social media and event hashtags.
more than non-accredited; smaller meetings more than larger Opportunities for HCPs to input on the agenda is among the
ones; shorter meeting durations than longer; and medical features that pharma respondents most want to provide more
society led rather than pharma led. of, as well as being among those most difficult to provide. While
HCP behaviour and demand is largely mirrored by industry the value that HCPs attribute to this feature is relatively low
provision, however, pharma respondents are significantly more compared to other features, they do agree that there is a lack
focused on pharma-led training/workshops, advisory boards and of opportunity to input on meeting agendas. Also highlighted
unaccredited rather than CME accredited meetings (though they by pharma as a feature which most want to supply more of but
do expect this to change). perceive as difficult to do so, is peer-to-peer discussion. Again,
this was not ranked so highly by HCPs in terms of value or lack
Attendance and support of scientific meetings is expected of provision.
to change in the coming year, with half of HCPs and pharma
respondents expecting to increase attendance/provision of
virtual/online meetings, just under half expecting onsite event Analysis – While it appears that pharma has a good
attendance/support to reduce, and around one quarter expecting awareness and ability to cater to the demands of HCPs for
attendance/provision of smaller events to increase and larger meeting type, length, location and direction, the same is not
events to reduce. true in relation to the features and tools used in association
with those meetings. The lack of correlation between HCP
While on demand digital events are considered of significant demand and industry supply of features and tools is likely
value by HCPs, they are least supported by industry, indicating to have multiple causes. These include: a lack of industry
that supply does not meet the demand. awareness related to HCP demand, a tendency for industry to
supply the features it chooses regardless of demand and also
Analysis – Both HCPs and pharma continue to attribute a reflection of the level of ease or difficulty associated with
high value to scientific meetings and the industry is largely provision of each feature. There is a clear need for industry
catering to current demand in terms of type, frequency to more carefully consider the features it provides in support
and duration. However, demand is changing and HCPs of scientific meetings, focusing more on those that HCPs
are increasingly leaning towards their preferred types of demand most and in particular those which are digital.
meetings, steered largely by convenience. In particular,
HCPs will increasingly turn to online access to content
from meetings rather than attending in person. And while
industry indicates an intention to address this change in
behaviour, there is currently a lack of provision.
76
Conclusions
Digital portals
87% of HCPs stated that they would use an online portal that
provides access to content from scientific meetings. More than
half had used one and, of those, most reported that they would
be prepared to pay for access.
Most industry respondents stated that they supported the

provision of online portals for output from scientific meetings,
with almost three quarters of pharma stating that digital tools
and platforms had increased the lifespan of their congress
Virtual/online access activity. For those who had not supported provision, the main
reasons cited were other priorities for the budget, followed by a
lack of HCP demand.
The majority (over two thirds) of all HCP and industry survey
respondents agreed that virtual/online events are a valuable While under a third of pharma respondents reported a high focus
alternative to onsite meetings. on discussion and dissemination of information for HCPs beyond
a live event via digital portals, 90% of HCPs stated that access
When deciding whether to attend a meeting, most HCPs to information and discussion beyond a scientific meeting had
always or usually consider the opportunities for virtual/online helped them to apply new medical approaches more quickly
access, citing the main benefits as convenience, time-saving, and 81% agreed that they would prefer to access conference
cost-saving and longer term access to materials. Two thirds materials throughout the year rather than be limited to the
reported attending at least one virtual event per year and 40% duration of the event.
reported that they interact with more events online than in
person. However, most also indicated that there are insufficient Content and features considered of highest value by HCPs
opportunities to access events remotely/online. include congress highlights, references/links to relevant
materials and expert summaries. Pharma respondents, provide
Three quarters of industry (pharma and service provider) mostly slide decks. Attributed lowest value by HCPs are social
respondents stated that virtual/online events provide the media feeds and provided least by pharma are social media
benefits of reaching a wider geographic audience and saving on feeds, opportunities to engage with peers during and after
cost and resource, however, only a third of pharma respondents the event, feedback on questions posed during the event and
reported always or usually considering provision of virtual/online interactive cases studies.
access to scientific meetings.
HCP respondents reported least trust for event hubs provided
Most reported that they have increased strategic focus by pharma but more trust for independent portals that are
around provision of virtual/online access to events in the past grant funded by pharma and most trust for online event portals
year, however under half had actually supported one, with provided by medical societies and associations. Of the pharma
internal lack of confidence in the benefits, cost/budget and respondents that support provision, the majority invest more
internal reluctance to change cited as the main reasons for not in their own portals than independent portals and two thirds
supporting more virtual/online events. For those who supported of service providers reported working more on pharma-owned
online access to meetings, most had not developed KPIs for portals than independent ones.
them and half did not know whether the engagement was better
for those events than for onsite events. Service providers appear
to have better awareness of engagement metrics for virtual/ Analysis – While industry recognises and wants to support
online meetings than pharma, with 60% stating that the metrics the high HCP demand for portals that provide access to
were more positive than those for onsite meetings. content post-event, there appears to be a lack of focus on
fulfilling the potential of such portals in terms of the type
of content, the type of funding and the ability to grow trust
Analysis – This study indicates that demand for virtual and and ongoing engagement. By focusing on these, there is the
online access to scientific meetings currently outweighs opportunity to improve the value that such portals can offer
supply but that industry is trying to resolve this and to HCPs.
planning to increase provision. Internal factors such as a lack
of confidence and resource are holding pharma back in the
first instance but a lack of clearly defined strategy and KPIs
also indicates that pharma is still finding its way in fulfilling
the potential that virtual and online access to meetings hold
for all stakeholders. Service providers seem to be more
advanced than pharma in this respect.
77
Conclusions
Obstacles
For HCPs, the obstacles to accessing scientific meetings are
greatest for onsite meetings, with cost and time being the main
ones. For live-streamed events, time and prioritising workload
are the biggest obstacles, while for online access to material
post event, lack of provision is by far the biggest obstacle.
Pharma respondents have a good awareness of the factors

affecting HCPs’ access to scientific meetings. However, for
live streamed meetings and online access to materials post
Industry funding event pharma overestimates lack of confidence in them but
underestimates lack of availability (correctly identified by service
providers).
Educating HCPs through medical meetings is a priority for
For pharma, live streaming poses the greatest challenge, with at
pharma budget, with spend increasingly focused on digital
least half citing the following as an obstacle: compliance/legal,
activity around events. Over 40% report increasing spend in the
understanding value/outcomes, building audience, providing a
last 12 months on ‘digital provision of content post event’, ‘live
personalised user experience and harnessing new technologies.
streaming of events’ and ‘provision of their own channels’, with
For digital hosting of materials post event, the main challenge
a reduction of spend on onsite events and branded standalone
is compliance/legal. For provision of onsite meetings, the main
events. Service providers however believe that this shift is
challenges are budget, maintaining engagement beyond the
bigger than pharma responses would indicate.
event and industry regulations/codes of practice.
Three quarters of HCPs value attending independent meetings
that are supported by unrestricted grants by pharma. Over half
Analysis – Obstacles to the access and provision of scientific
also expect pharma to provide medical education at events,
meetings depend upon the format and channel for delivery.
support funding of symposia, medical society meetings and
While some of the challenges faced by HCPs in attending
congress, and value pharma-sponsored symposia for the drug
onsite events are overcome if they can access the event and
information they disseminate. However, one third of HCPs
enduring materials online, time is still a restrictive factor and
reported that they lack trust in events funded by pharma, and
lack of provision is a significant and unavoidable obstacle
more than half stated that pharma-sponsored symposia are
for them. Industry has a good awareness of the challenges
usually too brand focused.
faced by HCPs in attending meetings but appears not to
fully recognise that certain obstacles can be overcome for
Analysis – While onsite scientific meetings remain a priority HCPs with better online access to events. At the same time,
for pharma budget, those budgets are shifting towards pharma perceives a wide variety of obstacles in providing
online channels and particularly pharma owned platforms. live-streaming, a different set of challenges to those
Service providers are increasingly being used to support the presented by onsite events and so this results in a dilemma.
provision of these, which may indicate a desire by pharma On demand access to content post-event would appear be
to retain control or ownership of the channels/platforms, the less-challenging and preferred option.
but also a lack of confidence or ability to develop them.
While HCPs value the support that pharma provides them
through scientific meetings, they [HCPs] prefer the channels
and content to be independent and non-promotional. If
that preference is ignored, engagement with those digital
platforms may suffer.
78
About EPG Communication Group
This report was
published by
EPG Communications
Group in 2017
EPG Communication Holdings Ltd.
is an independent group business
specialising in healthcare professional
engagement, behavioural technology,
and content strategy and creation for
the life science industry.
Sitting at the heart of the organisation is

epgonline.org, the website for healthcare
professionals, with a global audience spanning all
medical specialties. The website is operated by
EPG Health and serviced by its sister company
and in-house health communications agency,
Digital Medical Communications (DMC).
With multi stakeholder engagement experience

spanning decades, EPG Communications Group
shares industry insight and consultancy around
digital evolution and delivers innovative solutions
with measurable and impactful outcomes.

Wallside House
Mount Ephraim Road
Tunbridge Wells
Kent TN1 1EE
UK
Tel: +44 (0)1892 526776

Web: www.epghealthmedia.com
Twitter: @epghealthmedia
79
Wallside House
Mount Ephraim Road
Tunbridge Wells
Kent TN1 1EE
UK
Tel: +44 (0)1892 526776

Web: www.epghealthmedia.com
Twitter: @epghealthmedia

Scientific Meetings in The Digital Age Report

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Scientific Meetings in The Digital Age Report

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Scientific

PC: How do you expect your support/funding of the following

PC/SP: Do you believe that provision of virtual or online events is an

SP: Do you work more on the provision of bespoke/client-owned

As digital channels for supply of information

The objectives of this study

Demand versus supply

In May 2017, EPG Health Media conducted research Accreditation

This study is important to the pharmaceutical

This report is based on an independent

The study is based on surveys conducted with two

Every effort has been taken to ensure that it is transparent,

Note: Results are reliable

Respondent source epgonline.org database of healthcare professionals

Sample size 257

Survey language English

Survey period May 2017

Survey method Emailed link to an online survey

Sampling Random, voluntary (no honoraria), no control group

Incentive Entrance into prize draw for an Amazon Echo

Target respondents Pharmaceutical companies and other organisations involved in

Respondent Source EPG Communications Group database and social media

Sample size 200 (109 pharmaceutical companies, 91 service providers)

Survey language English

Survey period May 2017

Survey method Emailed link to an online survey

Sampling Random, voluntary (no honoraria), no control group

Incentive Early access to free full report of study findings

Report response key

This report was commissioned to examine how HCP

should be in terms of (healthcare professionals, pharmaceutical industry

providing what HCPs survey respondent groups combined indicate that:

want (from meetings); • Industry largely understands and caters to current

online), when (live and However:

• Industry service providers are more advanced than

• HCPs value pharma support but prefer the content

To satisfy HCP demand for convenient online and

Scientific meetings are the most important way for

Healthcare professionals (Fig. 1)

66% 21% 13%

Scientific meetings are the primary way we provide

43% 38% 19%

Healthcare professionals (Fig. 3)

31% 56% 13%

Scientific meetings are declining

25% 59% 17%

How much value do you attribute to the following types

Medical society conference 3% 3% 17% 36% 42%

Practical training or workshop - 0% 16% 42% 39%

1% 21% 41% 34%

Practical training or workshop - 4% 14% 38% 27% 16%

Investigator meeting 5% 10% 29% 42% 13%

Advisory board 3% 8% 44% 34% 12%

Seminar or lecture - 4% 21% 41% 25% 9%

Company product launch meeting 9% 31% 38% 14% 8%

Symposium - pharmaceutical company led 4% 20% 47% 20% 8%

Standalone meeting - 7% 27% 40% 20% 6%

Pharmaceutical (Fig. 6) Very low Low Medium High Very high

2% 23% 34% 36%

Practical training or workshop -

Seminar or lecture - 2% 13% 36% 40% 9%

Investigator meeting 9% 9% 18% 38% 27%

Advisory board 4% 4% 8% 46% 38%

Target respondents Pharmaceutical companies and other organisations involved in

Respondent Source EPG Communications Group database and social media