Garth Sundem  00:01

Welcome to this episode of the Medical Affairs Professional Society podcast series Elevate. I’m your host Garth Sundem, communications director at MAPS. And today we’re speaking with experts from Wiley about publication strategy to ensure that a study with implications for clinical care actually changes clinical practice. Joining us are Rebecca Cook, Director, Copyright and Licensing at Wiley. Angie List, Corporate Solutions Director APAC at Wiley, and Geoff Covey, Associate Director, Independent Medical Education US and EMEA at Wiley. And this episode is sponsored by Wiley. So publication impact is changing. That’s funny. we’ve chatted about this a little bit in other podcasts lately about how impact factor isn’t the only finish line for a study. Angie, can you give us your overview of what now creates a publications impact?

Angie List  01:02

Yeah, thanks, Garth. I think one of the important things to consider is what impacts are we talking about. So the traditional industry standard metrics, like impact factors remain valuable tools to assess journal performance and publication quality. And the impact factor is a measure of the number of citations of articles published. So how many times that article is cited in subsequent published research. And my research impact is important to researchers when it comes to health care. clinical impact is really what we’re striving for. And the only way to achieve that is to make the research more discoverable, easy to absorb, and then implement into practice. This is where it’s really challenging, because the pace of publishing and the volume of content being created has increased significantly in recent years. So bibliometric showed that the number of articles have climbed by about eight or 9% Each year, over the past several decades, there’s now close to 30,000 medical journals producing an estimated 2 million articles a year.

Garth Sundem  02:04

Okay, that’s a really good point impact, I always think of impact is changing the scientific landscape. But it sounds like you’re saying your strategy has to be very different when you’re talking about changing the clinical landscape. Those are two very different things, right?

Angie List  02:21

It is and it’s about trying to cut through that noise so that the sheer volume of content out there makes it incredibly hard for the healthcare professionals to find, consume, then apply the research into clinical practice. Now, there’s a there’s a plethora of research out there into HCP content preferences, I mean, wildly, we even conduct our own survey every year. And the overwhelming consensus amongst all the data that’s published is that healthcare professionals increasingly prefer the enhanced content formats when it comes to consuming clinical information. So enhancements in graphic video or audio form, plain language summaries, accredited learning programs, those sorts of formats. And interestingly, these sorts of formats don’t just help the healthcare professionals, where I’ve seen the impact on patient health literacy. There was a study recently into content enhancements that showed that almost 50% of those healthcare professionals surveyed use the format’s at least once a month with patients to explain complex information.

Garth Sundem  03:19

Oh, cool. It’s so interesting. I mean, journals were set up to, to inform and thus change the scientific landscape. And, you know, I think that a KOL, or a researcher, I guess, I should say, knows how to find the stuff that they need, and maybe can still cut through the noise themselves. But let’s, let’s bring in some other voices. So Geoff, what do you what do you do when you were trying to change practice or when you have a study that has the potential to enhance practice? What do we what do we do with that study from a publications standpoint?

Geoff Covey  04:00

Yeah, sure. Thanks, Garth. I think ensuring clinical impact is a multifaceted process. So from looking at dissemination, communication, engagement, and ultimately, implementation. So I think if we start at that process of the dissemination that peer reviewed, scientific paper always sits at the foundation, I always think of it as like a tree. And if you think of it like that, the scientific papers always the root. So any future activities always stem from that evidence based research? So I think publishing the study in a reputable, peer reviewed journal that reaches the desired target audiences is the first step is the key. And this is where the role of the publications team is crucial that they ensure that the study is presented in the most impactful way that reaches the right audience. But I think once you’ve had that paper published, and it’s It’s key, then, you know, if you want to demonstrate that clinical impact or have that impact, we need to be able to cascade that information beyond the peer review paper, and build on the audience that that peer review paper traditionally reaches. Therefore, I think it’s not not enough just published the study, we should be thinking about other ways, and other methods that we can, that we can use to amplify and cascade the information. I don’t think there’s a one size fits all solution and strategies will, of course, depend on resources and timing considerations. I think going back to what Andy said, it may involve a mix of channels and content formats, you know, for example, for presenting that study at a conference or a digital event, such as a webinar or through online accredited educational programs, and elearning. So communication is super important. And then if we go moving to engagement, so effectively engaging with healthcare professionals is key. So if we start to think about what activities can benefit from the inclusion of the published research, we then go on to that creation, for example, by me programs, and as a starting point, for that we can conduct, for example, a thorough needs assessment to identify the knowledge and skill gaps that exist amongst HCPs within that particular space. And then the content then that we create for the education for them programs can then help address those knowledge gaps, which should, which have come of course from from that original research, being able to cascade that down then into clinical practice. And finally, it comes down really to implementation. So findings need to be implemented into clinical practice for a study to have the impact. So measuring that impact, which is always a challenge, but can be done, for example, with testing learning outcomes in CME activities, such as Moore’s level for as well as going beyond accessing or assessing sorry, publication and citation analysis by looking at broader reach such as full text downloads, or altmetrics scores, to gauge share the papers influence on the wider scientific community in the long term. So yeah, there’s there’s a number of different approaches there, I realize I talk a lot, but ultimately maximizing the impact of that study involves several different approaches, and working in tandem with with Medical Affairs and other commercial teams is is, is pivotable. And I think, very quickly, we can see that we’re able to go beyond the original scholarly article, which are roots, and then branching off into various forms of knowledge transfer and broader dissemination. So that’s just my view on my take on that. I

Garth Sundem  07:50

love the way you describe it as cascading the impact to and Okay, so the follow up the enhancers? Is it that your communication outlets or activities, drive the enhancers that you need? What I’m imagining is okay, a publication you get it in the journal, you have an enhancer, that’s a plain language summary. And what you create an infographic and you feel like your job is done. We we created enhancers, we are now part of the modern publication strategy world. But you haven’t really done anything with them. Is there a standardized package of enhancers that the publication’s team just knows they need to create? And they create them? And then they’re done? Or is it somehow collaborative with all of the teams and functions that are going to be communicating? Cascading sorry, let’s use that word cascading the impact of a study through various activities. How do you decide on the enhancers?

Geoff Covey  08:55

Of think it really depends, you know, on the team and what the objectives are in terms of how to get that information out there. But I think as you mentioned, you know, the strongest possible approach is where you are collaborating internally within the organization. So you’re all aligned on on your objectives? I don’t think it’s necessarily just enough just to say create an infographic and a short video summary and say, hey, yeah, that’s it, we’re done. There’s a lot more that can be done. And I know something that we’re working with our customers where there’s on articles of discovery packages. So these are packages that are put together specifically to increase the impact and reach of published studies and that’s through the use of multiple tactics in terms of formats for content, dissemination and consumption, so you’re catering for a variety of consumption preferences, we all have different preferences when it comes to consuming content, some like a deep dive some like a video preference, some rather Just get the key takeaways from an infographic or one minute animation. So it’s making sure that you’re, you’re creating pieces that, that fulfill the various different consumption preferences of your audience, but then utilizing also the channels in which they’re, I don’t want to say playing but you know, and which are active, I suppose. So, you know, making sure that you can get that that scientific information or those key messages perhaps out on LinkedIn, where a lot of people are spending their time, or, for example, even catching them in a more social space, you know, we’ve done campaigns in and around Facebook to promote certain certain messages, and just really just so it’s all joint, the strategies joined up, you know, and that you’re a you’ve got the formats to cater for the preferences, but also you’re reaching people in channels where they’re spending a lot of their time. And that’s not always the traditional channel of being on a on a journal webpage, for example, you really need to catch people where, where they are, where they are active.

Angie List  11:03

Well, you can also use, you know, different formats and leveraging the power that the KOLs have. So people, you know, have hot hold a lot of que wells in high credibility and leveraging that credibility is one way. So for example, in some of our regions in Asia Pacific, we host lots of webinars and weights where there people are discussing a particular research study, and the implications of it. And that has led to getting them impact out far greater than just a content enhancement alone. So, you know, as Geoff said, it’s really about really understanding what the the healthcare professionals in that unique market in that unique space and that unique therapy area, there are some, you know, different specialists that may have different preference formats, as well. So understanding your audience, understanding how complex the message is that you need to get across, and the right channels to play in. So there is there is no one size fits all. But collaboration and a deep understanding of the customers or your ultimate users of that message is really important, in

Garth Sundem  12:07

a deep understanding of your own strategic goals to you know, back to the top of this conversation. Is it the change to the scientific landscape? Or is it the change the clinical landscape? And I’ll also say that, you know, it, cutting through the noise, we’re talking about cutting through the noise with the scientific study. But this is something that I wish maps knew how to do better as well, I wish we had the discoverability package for this podcast that leverage multiple channels, and we knew our audience and how to cut through the noise, just with with content in, in general. But so Okay, Rebecca, you’ve been so patient. I, you know, one of the things that we wanted to talk about is, it’s not just your own studies that we’re using to cut through the noise, right, there’s a wide scientific landscape out there. And there’s also licensing opportunities that can help you reach the goal of changing clinical practice. But maybe you’re using something that didn’t come from your internal scientific, you know, clean dev team or something like that. And this is also an area that is changing dramatically licensing, we’re talking open access, can we just use it? What what what do you think? What did licensing used to be and what is it now?

Rebecca Cook  13:22

Yeah, so I think even if we kind of think back sort of 1520 years when most content was sitting behind a paywall, copyright still at that stage wasn’t hugely well understood. And you know, now we’re in a world where there’s increasing Open Access output and, and alongside that more complexity that needs to be unpicked to make sure that everyone’s doing the right thing when they’re wanting to engage with and use this published research. So I always sort of say, when people ask me what kind of my my role is, it’s, the first thing I always say is about expanding the reach and the impact of, of the research we’ve published. But that’s being done in a way that’s kind of balancing intellectual property considerations and research integrity. And I think, you know, licensing is, is the way to be able to kind of unlock the value and the access and the messaging of that research, but in a way that’s most compelling to the healthcare professionals that needs to be engaging with it. And I think, um, in the world of open access, you know, it’s really easy to think that kind of copyright isn’t important anymore. But actually, the foundational part of any article that’s published under an open access license is copyright. So everyone has to be really aware of, you know, the basics at the very least, and then work where you’re not sure with partners who have expertise to kind of help you navigate that, that field of licensing. And I think it’s your kind of question, gosh, can I just use it? You know, honestly, and often in most cases, the answer is no, not without asking. And what we don’t want is for those who are engaging with that research to be inadvertently, you know, kind of straying into infringement territory or doing the wrong thing. So as a publisher with kind of Research Integrity and and, you know, the article kind of at the core of what of what we’re what we’re doing as a, you know, as a research output, understanding a little bit about those Creative Commons licenses that are commonly used and the implications of your particular use case for that content, alongside the article type that it was published under, are really important things that we try and help our partners navigate. But that’s not to put people off, you know, I think what’s really important to note, is that the answer or what, whilst it may not be, you can just go ahead and use it, the answer normally is yes, you can use it but you know, you need to work with the the rights holder to make sure that you’re using that content in a way that is, is in compliance, that license and with any other restrictions or considerations that the rights holder would have. And normally, that’s very much foundation Foundation has been driven by ensuring that the research maintains its integrity and the credibility and that, no, we’re not straying into into territory where any of that is lost or diminished by the reuses. Yeah. But I think one of the real benefits of licensing as a solution to kind of engaging with healthcare professionals is that it enables whoever’s wanting to kind of create a powerful message and engagement program and educational program, to take the key messages from that research, and, you know, lean on and leverage the credibility of that original paper, but deliver that message in a way that made me more engaging or more resonate deeply with that target audience. So a great example is, you know, would the best way of educating healthcare professionals on efficacy data in in a trial right up be passing a six page article to read? Or would it be is it take that one table or chart that illustrates that beautifully, and put it in a package of information and infographic, you know, another kind of approach and educational program, for example, and, you know, get the best of both worlds. So you get the scientific credibility, but you also get a much clearer message being delivered alongside it. And I think that’s where licensing adds real value. I think it’s also really important to note that licensing isn’t just about necessarily using the original article, original study, but also taking those enhances those infographics, the video abstracts the other great and kind of engagement tools that are being created alongside that article, and taking and using those in different channels. And licensing is a great vehicle to enable that to happen in in a copyright compliant way, whilst respecting and maintaining the integrity of the underlying research there. So

Garth Sundem  17:57

for our publications team, I think I asked this from a perspective, that was a maybe uninformed, I was asking, can you use someone else’s research your Medical Affairs team, can you license and use someone else’s research? But for a publications team within Medical Affairs, when someone comes to you and says, Can we use your research? You know, is the answer always? Yes? Because if someone’s using your research, they’re disseminating your knowledge Correct? Is is the answer. When someone asks you, if I can use the table from your enhancer, or I can use your video abstract? Is the is the answer. pretty much always? Yes. Is it? Yes, with caveats. What do you think?

18:43

Well, I think, you know, it really depends on how that content is being used and your comfort level as to you know, where whether you really understand how, how that message has been delivered, whether you’re happy with that. I mean, at Wiley, we take the view that, you know, more often than not, it is a yes, it’s just that there may be some just clear guidelines or rules of the road road that we ask our licensees to follow, which are typically around that around attribution, or maybe passing a link back to the full article, just to make sure that, you know, there is that underlying bedrock there of the research. So I think it does depend on different rights holders, different publications, teams may have different views. But I think as I said, for Wiley, fundamentally, what we want to do is make sure we’re maximizing the reach and the impact of the research that we’re publishing and I feel very much a custodian of that. So that doesn’t mean that it’s always a yes, but they’re always a you know, more often than not that that’s you know, in line with our mission, I suppose to kind of cascade that research as Geoff mentioned down to, to those who need to access it in the in the format, the you know, method of, of accessing and engaging with that that’s going to be most effective for them. Okay,

Garth Sundem  19:57

cool. So what we miss practical Tips. We’re trying to change clinical practice. Here in our 20 minute podcast. What did what did we missed for evolving strategies, publication strategies for changing clinical practice? What do you think Rebecca, I see you coming up, or AMGs? Are you coming off mute there?

Angie List  20:19

Was just reflecting on some of the things that have been said, I think I’d probably just summarize is that you know, impact, you really need to understand what you’re trying to measure to begin with, what is the true impact, what are you trying to achieve, and with whom, and then from there, that’s where the strategy is really going to evolve, ensuring that you’re using the right journal, ensuring that you’ve got the right permissions with the content that you’re using, making sure that the content is more engaging and accessible, is really what’s going to drive that needle forward and ensure that the research in science get incorporated into clinical practice. Geoff,

Garth Sundem  20:53

what do you think? What do we miss?

Geoff Covey  20:56

Yeah, I think Angie summed it up really nicely, actually. I think, you know, one of the things to remember, I think, with any publication or anything that gets published, you know, a lot of time and energy and probably investment has gone into that process, you know, in order to get that, that information through through peer review and publish. So I like to think that you once you’ve achieved that, you know, trying to get that information out further into the into the broader sphere is really important. Otherwise, it almost just gets locked away in a, in a clinical paper, which, let’s be honest, isn’t that accessible to to everyday, everyday people and even some clinicians, you know, if it’s not your specialty reading and clinical paper is going to be probably a bit of a challenge that you don’t necessarily want to take on, if you haven’t got a lot of time on your hands, which because we know, most conditions are very time poor. So for me, I think it’s really about, you know, obviously those who want to read the paper and have the deep dive will go and do that it’s more the people who we want to inform and get this information out to, and how can we best do that? And what channels should we be, should we be operating in order to, to leverage that information. So I’d really just take the approach of looking at that information, looking at that published data and thinking about how I can disseminate that in different formats, different that cater to different preferences that are going to be delivered in different channels where my audience is going to be playing and that doesn’t necessarily always have to mean the professional channels, let’s say that could be catching them, you know, when they’ve got five minutes spare on their lunch break, and you know, something for argument’s sake could pop up on Instagram or could pop up on their Facebook feed or something like that. But it’s disseminating those those key themes of published data and, and that was drive helps drive that impact if they get a short takeaway, that influences them their clinical practice or, or for example, causes then then to go to the original article and actually looking in delve a bit deeper into that into that key theme, then you’ve reached your goal, I think and objective with with what you’re trying to achieve and in cascading that information down as we’ve been discussing today. Okay,

Garth Sundem  23:15

cool. Well, let’s, let’s leave it there for today, the 20 minutes that people have spent listening to this, they could have spent reading thousand Medical Affairs studies that published during these 20. So thanks, Angie, Rebecca, and Geoff,

Angie List  23:30

I could add just one thing that gosh, you don’t have to do this alone. You know, there’s a team of people here at Wiley that are really dedicated and passionate about this space willing to offer advice. So please, you know, reach out you know, it is a it is a very complex landscape. There’s a lot to try and understand and unpack but you do not have to do it alone.

Garth Sundem  23:51

Okay, and to learn more about how to do that, visit wiley.com/corporate-solutions. MAPS members, don’t forget to subscribe, and we hope you enjoyed this episode of the Medical Affairs Professional Society podcast series, Elevate.