Bienentanz home

Making eDetailing work

Perhaps the most striking take-away from this year's eyeforpharma Online Marketing and eDetailing conference in Berlin1 was how diverse the leading pharmaceutical companies' eDetailing projects in Europe have been to date. The industry is still in an early and exciting experimental phase, with no approach having evolved for others to follow. As long as this situation persists, senior managers will remain reluctant to invest into eDetailing "big time".

Most physicians in Europe, for their part, now have the necessary technology in place. With 90% now having access to the internet, up from 21% in 2001, the continent has caught up with the US. Four out of five are connected by broadband either at home or in the surgery, enabling access to rich media content such as videos.2 But while a substantial 41% of physicians in the US have taken part in eDetailing, only 13% of their European counterparts have done likewise.3 This figure, however, is set to shoot up.

Of the various media types, physicians seem to prefer text and video, with RSS feeds and podcasts the least popular.2 Education is the biggest driver of internet usage: 80% of physicians in Europe use the net for this purpose, followed by clinical information and new product information. Online conferences are also making headway. In 2006 physicians had participated in, on average, 2.1 conferences online, ten times the 2004 figure.2

eDetailing is likely to complement rather than substitute companies' existing sales activities. Half the physicians in Europe who have participated in eDetailing claim to spend more time with their reps, and only 8% less.3 Eventually, eDetailing may enable reps to coordinate and focus their activities better, with less time wasted in waiting rooms and on the road. This would ultimately make their profession more popular.



None too scary ghosts

A much discussed recent study4 on the authorship of industry-initiated randomised trials found evidence that a startling three out of four papers, a much greater proportion than the previously estimated 10 to 15%5, fail to mention as authors individuals who have made substantial intellectual contributions. However, a closer look reveals that the determined high prevalence of "ghost authorship" is almost entirely down to statisticians having been deemed necessary to be included as authors. Not everyone agrees with this viewpoint. Even the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors do not stipulate such a requirement.6

With regards to transparency and accountability, so-called "honorary" authorship is surely the bigger issue. Some high-profile cases have come to light where renowned scientists, despite having contributed very little, had been added as authors in apparent attempts to lend authority to papers.7 And by no means is honorary authorship confined to publications on the results of clinical trials. In basic research it is a fairly widespread practice, especially among established scientists, to put someone's name on a paper in return for them doing the same. This dilutes the achievements of not-as-well-networked young scientists and thus acts as a disincentive to a career in research.

 
    

"Your newsletter does a great job in shedding light on some highly relevant and complex issues."

Gilbert Wenzel, founder of Quisisana Consult AG, fmr Member of the Executive Board at Novartis

"In today's flood of biotech related information it is difficult to stand out. The Buzz Letter does so through its short and focused stories on issues that do not get much attention. On top, it is easy and fun to read."

Lubor Gaal, Director Licensing Europe at Bristol-Myers Squibb

"The Buzz Letter - an excellent source of information on biotech management."

Ranjit S. Bhardwaj, co-founder of and Head of Research at TheraVision