The Corporate Reputation of Pharma Companies, 2017 - The Patient Perspective of 262 Cancer Patient Groups - Cancer Edition

  • ID: 4593113
  • Report
  • 115 pages
  • PatientView
1 of 5
Different Types of Cancer Patient Groups can Hold Very Different Views of Pharma

FEATURED COMPANIES

  • Abbvie
  • Bayer
  • Eisai
  • Ipsen
  • Novartis
  • Sanofi
  • MORE

The big theme of this report is how cancer patient groups vary in their perspectives on pharma (and its activities).

The researcher is pleased to publish the results of the 2017 (6th) edition of ‘The Corporate Reputation of Pharma-from the Perspective of Cancer Patient Groups’. The report highlights the differing perspectives of the various types of cancer patient groups, including:

  • The entire respondent body of 262 cancer patient groups. This category represents the average view of cancer patient groups.
  • Umbrella cancer patient groups, and cancer patient groups that concentrate on all types of cancer.
  • Patient groups that specialise in blood cancers.
  • Patient groups that specialise in breast cancer. And...
  • Patient groups that specialise in prostate cancer.

MAJOR FINDINGS

To begin with, cancer patient groups take a very different view of the corporate reputation of the pharma industry, according to the variant of cancer in which they specialise. As the chart below shows, cancer patient groups that specialise in bowel cancers take a more positive view of the pharma industry’s corporate reputation than patient groups specialising in other forms of cancer - with 70% of bowel-cancer patient groups stating that the industry had an “Excellent” or “Good” corporate reputation in 2017. At the other - pessimistic - end of the scale are umbrella cancer patient groups and cancer patient groups with a remit to cover all types of cancer; just 38.1% of these stated that the pharma industry had an “Excellent” or “Good” corporate reputation in 2017.

The companies' ability to create (or fail to create) high-quality products would seem to be the main driver for the divergent views towards pharma's overall corporate reputation among the different categories of cancer patient groups. A comparison of the pattern of differentiation in charts 1 and 2 shows that the variation in attitudes of the different types of cancer patient groups to the industry's competence at making high-quality products seems to loosely match their assessment of pharma's corporate reputation as a whole.

By looking at the comments from 2017’s respondent cancer patient groups, further differences can be found among the cancer patient groups, such as:

  • Geographic inequities, including a failure to conduct clinical trials in particular geographic locations. Or, again, an inability to adapt to different geographic healthcare systems, cultures, and patient perspectives (for instance, the provision of patient information in local languages). And a lack of local management interest in issues of patient centricity.
  • In addition, some cancer patient groups felt disenfranchised by pharma’s lack of interest in their particular cancer subject area. A significant number of children’s-cancers patient groups mentioned the issue. For instance: an international children’s-cancers patient group from Italy wrote ... “Progress is being made for everyone, except children … In the 36 years of our association, no pharmaceutical company has ever contacted us directly. We grant contracts to doctors and to biologists, we fund research, we train volunteers, we provide high-level care and assistance, but we have never been contacted.”

However, cancer patient groups also proposed some solutions to help tackle these underlying problems.

  • First, and foremost, some cancer patient groups argued for greater consensus building, not only between pharma and patient groups, but also with other healthcare stakeholders - even politicians, according to the Leukämiehilfe Rhein-Main e.v., a German blood-cancers patient group, which wrote: “Convene regular round tables (meetings) with multidisciplinary participants. You need everyone involved to be sitting at one table - including politicians - in order to gear projects towards patients, and achieve results.” And an international cancer patient group from the United Kingdom wrote: “Patients and industry have a shared interest in showing that products work. So, we need to work to a shared and agreed approach”. The patient group specifically referred to shared agreements on real-world data, and a shift toward ‘real-people’ clinical trials.
  • Another way forward, called for by many cancer patient groups, is greater feedback - for example, about new drug developments, and clinical trials.

Furthermore, cancer patient groups noted that…

  • Products need to be tailored to minimise side effects, and to improve patients’ quality of life.
  • Patient information needs to be more comprehensible to ordinary patients. Similarly, contracts addressing, say, patient inclusion in clinical trials, should be less legalistic in terminology.
  • Clinical trials - particularly for the treatments of rare cancers - should include children.

Which individual companies topped the corporate-reputation rankings among cancer patient groups in 2017?

Individual pharma companies will find that their rankings at the 12 indicators of corporate reputation varied significantly, according to the type of cancer patient group assessing them. Three other factors may bring a bearing on company rankings:

  1. The cancer specialty of the company (or whether the company runs a diversified cancer portfolio).
  2. Whether the company is experienced or new to the field of cancer. And...
  3. Whether the company has increased or reduced its investment in all or some aspects of oncological medicine.

Whatever the reason, it is striking how much influence the varying nature of cancer patient-group specialties has on individual company rankings at corporate reputation. Nevertheless, three companies dominate the top ranks for corporate reputation in cancer: Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer.

Who came first?

  • Novartis was ranked overall 1st out of 30 companies by the 262 cancer patient groups that participated in the survey.
  • Pfizer was ranked 1st out of 19 companies, according to the 67 patient groups that focused on all types of cancer.
  • Janssen was ranked 1st out of 12 companies, according to the 39 patient groups that focused on blood cancers.
  • Pfizer was ranked 1st out of 13 companies, according to the 42 patient groups that focused on breast cancer.
  • Janssen was ranked 1st out of 7 companies, according to the 31 patient groups that focused on prostate cancer.
READ MORE
Note: Product cover images may vary from those shown
2 of 5

FEATURED COMPANIES

  • Abbvie
  • Bayer
  • Eisai
  • Ipsen
  • Novartis
  • Sanofi
  • MORE

Executive Summary
Performance At Corporate Reputation Of Individual Pharma Companies, 2017   
As Assessed By Cancer Patient Groups Familiar With The Companies, And Of Varying Cancer Specialties
Cancer Patient-Group Relationships With Pharma Companies, 2017
Industry-Wide Findings Among Cancer Patient Groups, 2017
Rankings Of The 30 Pharma Companies, 2017 V. 2016   
Among Cancer Patient Groups Familiar With The Companies
Positionings Of 23 Pharma Companies, 2017 V. 2016   
Among Cancer Patient Groups That Work/Partner With The Companies
Profiles Of The 30 Companies, 2017

Appendices
I. Cancer Patient Groups: Views On Pharma; And Recommendations For Improvement
II. Profiles Of Respondent Cancer Patient Groups, 2017

Tables and Charts
The Pharma Industry’S Corporate Reputation, 2017 (According To The Various Specialties Of Cancer Patient Groups)
Companies Ranking 1St For Each Of The 12 Indicators Of Corporate Reputation, 2017 (According To The Various Specialties Of Cancer Patient Groups)
Performance At Corporate Reputation Of Individual Pharma Companies, 2017 (According To Cancer Patient Groups Of All Types)—Chart And Table
Performance At Corporate Reputation Of Individual Pharma Companies, 2017 (According To Blood-Cancer Patient Groups)—Chart And Table
Performance At Corporate Reputation Of Individual Pharma Companies, 2017 (According To Breast-Cancer Patient Groups)—Chart And Table
Performance At Corporate Reputation Of Individual Pharma Companies, 2017 (According To Prostate-Cancer Patient Groups)—Chart And Table
Total Of Cancer Patient Groups Partnering With Each Pharma Company, And Familiar With Each Company, 2017
Types Of Relationships That Cancer Patient Groups Have With Pharmaceutical Companies, 2017—Listed High To Low
The Corporate Reputation Of The Pharmaceutical Industry, According To Cancer Patient Groups, 2017 V. 2016—Compared With That Of Eight Other Healthcare Sectors
The Pharma Industry’S Corporate Reputation, According To Cancer Patient Groups, 2013-2017 Cancer Patient Groups’ Views On The Efficacy Of The Pharmaceutical Industry At The Indicators Of Corporate Reputation, 2017—Chart And Table
Cancer Patient Groups’ Views On The Efficacy Of The Pharmaceutical Industry At The Indicators Of Corporate Reputation, 2017 V. 2016 V. Patient Groups Of All Therapy Areas, 2017
Cancer Patient Groups’ Views On The Efficacy Of The Pharmaceutical Industry At The  Indicators Of Corporate Reputation, 2017—Analysis By Each Indicator
Rankings Of Individual Pharma Companies, 2017 V. 2016 (According To Cancer Patient Groups Familiar With The Company)
Positionings Of Individual Pharma Companies, 2017 V. 2016 (According To Cancer Patient Groups That Work/Partner With The Company)
Profiles Of The 30 Companies, 2017

Charts And Tables For Each Of The 30 Companies:

  • Number of cancer patient groups claiming familiarity with the company, 2017.
  • Number of cancer patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with the company, 2017.
  • Company scores among cancer patient groups familiar with the company, and which worked with the company, for each of the 12 indicators of corporate reputation, 2017.
  • Percentage of the cancer patient groups that worked with the company, but which also worked with other companies, 2017.
  • Profile of respondent cancer patient groups familiar with the company, 2017: country of domicile; geographic remit; and types of relationships.
  • The company’s PCRIs (Patient Corporate Reputation Index) for each of the 12 indicators—as assessed by cancer patient groups familiar with the company, 2017 v. 2016 v. 2015.
  • Overall rankings for the company according to cancer patient groups familiar with the company, 2017 v. 2016.
  • Overall positionings for the company according to cancer patient groups that work with the company, 2017 v. 2016.
  • Company rankings for each of the 12 indicators according to cancer patient groups familiar, or working, with the company, 2017 v. 2016.
  • The company’s Net Promoter Score, 2017—as assessed by cancer patient groups working with the company.
  • Company’s rankings for the 12 indicators of corporate reputation among cancer patient groups of different specialties, and familiar with the company.
Note: Product cover images may vary from those shown
3 of 5

Loading
LOADING...

4 of 5
  • Abbvie
  • Allergan
  • Amgen
  • Astellas
  • Astrazeneca
  • Bayer
  • Biogen
  • Boehringer I.
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb
  • Celgene
  • Eisai
  • Eli Lilly
  • Ferring
  • Gilead
  • Gsk
  • Ipsen
  • Janssen
  • Leo Pharma
  • Merck & Co
  • Merck Kgaa
  • Novartis
  • Otsuka
  • Pfizer
  • Pierre Fabre
  • Roche
  • Sanofi
  • Servier
  • Shire
  • Takeda
  • Teva
Note: Product cover images may vary from those shown
5 of 5
Note: Product cover images may vary from those shown
Adroll
adroll