These results are derived from a global review of pharma’s corporate reputation (conducted November 2016 to early-February 2017).
This report is based on the opinions of 105 mental-health patient groups, from Germany (11), Spain (11), Sweden (11), UK (9), USA (9), and 22 other countries.
The specialty areas of the mental-health patient groups: addiction (11); ADHD (7), psychosis/schizophrenia (6), bipolar disorder (5), suicide (4), and other mental-health conditions.
- Eli Lilly
In 2015, a much larger number of pharma companies—20—were included in that year's assessment. The number of pharma companies featured fell 2015-2016, for two reasons: (1) The 2015 survey allowed respondent patient groups to tick/check more than one option in the question that asked them their specialty. The 2015 mental-health results therefore included many patient groups that were interested in mental health, but which specialised in non-mental-health conditions. The 2016 survey overcame this problem by focusing solely on each respondent patient group’s single main specialisation. (2) Between 2015 and 2016, several companies reduced their investment in, or withdrew from, the field of mental health—a factor commented on by some of the mental-health patient groups participating in the 2016 survey.
48 mental-health patient groups from around the world provided comments on pharma's corporate reputation.
- How the pharma industry’s corporate reputation compares with that of other healthcare industries.
- How the pharma industry’s corporate reputation has changed over the past five years.
- How good or bad the pharma industry is at various activities of relevance to patients and patient groups.
7 indicators show the corporate reputation of individual pharma companies:
- Patient centricity.
- Information for patients.
- Patient safety.
- Usefulness of products.
- Patient-group relationships (new for 2016).
- In 2016, just 20.0% of the mental-health patient groups thought that the pharma industry had an “Excellent” or “Good” corporate reputation (37.9% of patient groups worldwide thought the same).
- Only 12% of 2016’s 105 respondent mental-health patient groups thought that the pharma industry’s corporate reputation had improved over the past five years (compared with 23% of respondent patient groups therapy wide).
- As many as 42% of mental-health patient groups thought that pharma’s corporate reputation had declined (against 29%, therapy wide).
- Mental-health patient groups were more negative than other types of patient groups in 2016 about many of the pharma industry’s activities. Although 45% stated that pharma was “Excellent” or “Good” at innovating, and 44% at creating high-quality products, these figures were lower than those reported by patient groups from 15 other therapy areas considered by this Corporate Reputation analysis.
- Mental-health patient groups sent pharma a clear message in 2016: the key task for improving corporate reputation (out of a list of 15 potential choices) is to do more to ensure patient safety (noted by 18% of the mental-health patient groups, but by only 11% of patient groups therapy wide).
PHARMA COMPANIES and MENTAl-HEALTH PATIENT GROUPS
- The company with which mental-health patient groups were most familiar in 2016 was Pfizer (59 of the 105 respondent mental-health patient groups were familiar with the company). However, Janssen was the company which worked with the largest number of mental-health patient groups—22, in total.
INDIVIDUAL COMPANY FINDINGS—MENTAL HEALTH
- Janssen ranked overall 1st in 2016 for corporate reputation among the 7 pharma companies, when judged by mental-health patient groups familiar with the company. Janssen also ranked 1st for five of the seven indicators of corporate reputation: patient information; patient safety; the provision of high-quality products; transparency; and integrity.
- Lundbeck ranked 1st among the 7 pharma companies for the other two indicators of corporate reputation: patient centricity; and patient-group partnerships (when judged by mental-health patient groups familiar with the company).
- Janssen was also positioned overall 1st in 2016 for corporate reputation among the 7 pharma companies, when judged by mental-health patient groups that worked with the company. Janssen was positioned 1st among these patient groups for four of the seven indicators of corporate reputation: patient information; patient safety; transparency; and integrity.
- Eli Lilly was positioned 1st among its mental-health patient-group partners for the corporate-reputation indicator of patient centricity.
- Lundbeck was positioned 1st among its mental-health patient-group partners for the corporate-reputation indicator of patient-group partnerships
HIGHS and LOWS—MENTAL HEALTH
- Pharma companies’ PCRIs among patient groups familiar with each company, mental health v. therapy wide: ordered according to the difference between the PCRI values for the two sets of patient groups (high to low)
- When the Patient Corporate Reputation Index (PCRI) is applied, the final 2016 rankings of companies among mental-health patient groups familiar with them can be compared with those attained by the same companies among patient groups from all therapy areas.
- Such comparisons show that, in 2016, Janssen is as appreciated by mental-health patient groups familiar with the company as by the equivalent patient groups from all therapy areas.