PatientView Quarterly
PatientView Quarterly is available on subscription to members of the public who may not qualify for membership of the HSCNetwork International but who are interested in reading about health and social campaigners.
Issues of PatientView Quarterly contain:
· Independent and balanced analysis of health advocacy worldwide (PatientView Quarterly concentrates on what health-oriented groups are thinking, what they are doing, and what they plan to do).
· A focus on topics at the top of the agenda of patient, disability and carers' groups.
· Interviews on policy and strategy matters with leading campaigners.
· Summary results of in-house surveys. (These simple surveys are conducted among the databank established during the setting up of the HSCNetwork, which includes 100,000 health advocacy representatives and patients from around the globe. The surveys enable health and disability campaigners to express their views on subjects of importance to them, and results are published in PatientView Quarterly.)
PatientView Quarterly (January 2011)
Corporate reputation of pharma - the patient perspective
What this issue contains:
This January 2012 study represents patient groups’ latest impressions on the corporate reputation of individual pharma companies. The methodology for the study was formulated in consultation with patient groups and industry. The 60-page report is based on the results of a November 2011 online survey of 500 large, influential patient groups drawn from 61 countries across the world. The report looks at the corporate reputation (from the patient perspective) of the whole pharma industry, and also the corporate reputation of 30 individual pharma companies (• Abbott • Actavis • Allergan • Amgen • Astellas • AstraZeneca • Baxter International • Bayer • Biogen Idec • Boehringer Ingelheim • Bristol-Myers Squibb • Eli Lilly (Lilly) • Genzyme • Gilead Sciences • GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) • Johnson & Johnson [and all of its affiliates, eg Janssen] • Lundbeck • Merck [US company, and all of its affiliates, eg MSD] • Merck [German company, and all of its affiliates, eg Merck Serono] • Novartis • Novo Nordisk • Nycomed • Pfizer •Roche • Sanofi • Servier • Shire • Takeda • Teva • UCB). The companies are ranked for their effectiveness at fulfilling six patient-oriented indicators. The results for each company are based only on feedback from the respondent patient groups that claim to be familiar with that particular company. The report contains strategic recommendations from the respondent patient groups on how companies can improve their corporate reputation (from a patient perspective). Finally, the report briefly profiles the 30 companies for annual revenue, products, mission statement, and types of respondent patient groups familiar with the company.
|
cover of PatientView Quarterly,
January issue 2012
Corporate reputation of pharma - the patient perspective
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PatientView Quarterly (Summer 2011)
How can industry build relationships with patient groups?
What this issue contains:
‘How can industry build relationships with patient groups?’ is a report that looks at the current state of relationships between patient groups and industry. The report is based on the results of a PatientView March-May 2011 survey of 850 patient groups from across the world. The patient group respondents told the survey about their experiences of partnering with commercial entities.
The report is analysed for 10 different countries/regions of the world.
This report provides strategic pointers—both to patient groups and to industry—as to how relationships can be improved (from the patient perspective). Groups detail the size, scale, and nature of their current relationships with industry (including pharma, medical devices, commercial health insurers, commercial health providers, and consumer health companies). Groups describe their current relationships with named industry partners. They mention the companies they think excel in relationships with patient groups. The report ranks the various regulations that govern industry/patient-group partnerships for effect upon industry/patient-group partnerships. Patient groups identify the main barriers to forming partnerships. They point out which sources of information help them frame their views about companies, and they mention seven factors about companies that affect the reputation of those companies. Patient groups note seven factors that promote a patient group’s willingness to partner or work with a company. And the groups set out acceptable levels of funding from companies to patient groups, as well as determine the most-acceptable forms of funding.
The report profiles 136 of the respondent patient groups in detail. |
cover of PatientView Quarterly,
Summer issue 2011
How can industry build relationships
with patient groups?
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PatientView Quarterly (Winter 2010-2011)
What patients think of doctors
What this issue contains:
‘What do patients think of doctors?’ is a 400-plus-page report that constitutes one of the most imaginative, wide-ranging, authoritative, and up-to-date commentaries on the subject of doctor-patient relations currently available anywhere in 2011. The report relates in massive depth the results of a PatientView November 2010 survey of 2,500 patient groups from across the world. This immense number of patient group respondents offered the survey their expert comments on patients’ opinions of doctor-patient relations.
The data-rich report is analysed for 12 different countries/regions of the world and 12 different disease areas.
The report initially looks at patient groups’ perspectives on current doctor-patient relationships, but then considers how doctor-patient relations can be improved.
A variety of subjects is considered: the improvements in access to general physicians (GPs) that are required by patients; improvements in access to consultant/specialists required by patients; information on treatment and diagnosis required by patients; information on issues other than treatment required by patients; improvements in the communication and understanding skills of health professionals required by patients; improvements in access and choice required by patients when doctors diagnose and treat patients; the treatment goals of patients; how health professionals can gain patient trust; how health professionals can respect their patients’ valuable time; how health professionals can improve their accountability; how health professionals can improve the continuity of care they offer patients (both inside and outside the consulting room); and how health professionals can improve the prevention services they offer patients. What single action do patients want from government and payers to improve doctor-patient relationships? And which pharma companies have a positive record on helping to improve doctor-patient relationships (and why)?
The report includes thousands of quotations (arranged by country and by disease).
The report profiles 109 of the respondent patient groups in detail.
|
cover of PatientView Quarterly,
Winter issue 2010-201
What patients think of doctors
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
PatientView Quarterly (Summer 2010)
What UK patients think of the NHS and its future
What this issue contains:
The Coalition government that entered office in the UK in May 2010 has suggested a number of key reforms. Chief among them is the creation of a ‘Big Society’ in all areas of life, including health. A May-June 2010 PatientView survey of 887 patient groups (70% of which are community based) has found that these organisations already are the Big Society — they are exactly what the new government is talking about. Community health groups play a pivotal role in supporting the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) and its patients, with little or no financial backing from government. More than one in five of the survey’s respondent groups supply NHS patients with core practical or physical healthcare services — including nurses, doctors, and even hospitals. Respondents also provide the following additional services: 96% provide information to patients; 82% provide services that support treatment and care; 54% train healthcare professionals; 44% train patients in advocacy; 40% are involved in developing guidelines and frameworks for the NHS, and 24% fund or conduct medical R&D. Only 6% of the respondent groups point to central government as their main source of income. Yet, although community health groups make a major contribution to the NHS and its patients, only 26% of the respondent organisations believe that the Conservative party, when it was in Opposition, rated them as important to talk to. And, for all the publicity surrounding the idea of a Big Society, none of the groups surveyed appears to have been formally approached by the new government for consultations on the future of the NHS. The vast majority of the survey’s respondent groups are worried about the NHS’s future chances under the Coalition. The majority of the survey’s respondents commenting on the Coalition’s reform plans anticipate a new round of NHS budget cuts in line with the current ethos of fiscal austerity. They foresee that front-line healthcare workers, rather than managers, will be hit hardest. HIV/AIDS groups are particularly apprehensive about the government’s plans. They suspect the AIDS Support Grant, which subsidises the living costs of people with HIV/AIDS, will be withdrawn. A number of groups anticipate cuts in centrally-run monitoring services, thereby diminishing any ability to compare the quality and the delivery of NHS healthcare across the country. |
cover of PatientView Quarterly,
Summer issue 2010
What UK patients think of the NHS
and its future
|
|
|
|
