Your Cart Is Empty!
European medical affairs teams for four renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treatments have been working overtime, interacting with 12-58% more oncologists than any other team in the past 6 months.
Is all their hard work paying off?
Find out how oncologists rate Opdivo’s team, and how the teams for 7 other major RCC treatments measure up, in Medical Affairs Reputations: RCC.
You’ll learn whether your team is giving oncologists the services they want, whether they’re satisfied with your performance, and where you need the most improvement.
Answering Key Questions about Medical Affairs Teams for 8 Major RCC Brands
Afinitor (everolimus; Novartis): Which medical affairs team is more active, Afinitor’s or Inlyta’s?
Avastin (bevacizumab; Roche): Do oncologists think Avastin’s team does a better job providing competitive information or information about clinical trials?
Inlyta (axitinib; Pfizer): Is Inlyta’s team doing a better job of responding to inquiries or providing oncologists with relevant materials?
Proleukin (aldesleukin; Novartis): Proleukin’s team gets high performance and satisfaction scores in most areas. How does it rank for overall quality of interactions?
Sutent (sunitinib; Pfizer): Sutent’s team’s satisfaction scores are far ahead of the pack in one key area. Which one?
Torisel (temsirolimus; Pfizer): Torisel’s team has the lowest satisfaction scores in all but one area. Which one?
Votrient (pazopanib; Novartis): Which team ranks higher for overall quality of interactions, Votrient’s or Sutent’s?
Fierce competition at the top of the market: Rated for overall quality of interactions, less than 4 points separate the 1st place team from the 4th place team.
Top 4 teams are highly active: In the last 6 months, they had up to a little over three times as many interactions with oncologists as other teams surveyed.
Oncologists hungry for information: They say the most important, and most used medical affairs services involve providing information and clinical support.
Oncologists prefer face to face: In-person interaction types rank higher than electronic interactions and phone calls, although email is fairly well tolerated.
Teams doing a relatively good job: Though not off the charts, performance scores for every team covered are at least moderately high—and highest in the areas important to oncologists.
Some areas need improvement: Of the five medical affairs services most important to oncologists, most teams need to improve satisfaction in two of them.
Satisfaction could be better: Several teams have average satisfaction scores in most areas. Surprisingly, some of the highest scores go to the team with the lowest overall quality rating.
Time to get organized: Several oncologists suggested improved organization and appointment scheduling as a way for medical affairs teams to provide better services.
An Expert-designed Competitive View of Your Medical Affairs Team
Developed with the help of medical affairs specialists, this report gives you an in-depth comparison of 8 medical affairs teams—answering important questions like:
What do oncologists need?
How, and how often are they using your medical affairs team?
What services do they consider most important?
How often should you contact them? What channels are best?
Does your medical affairs team deliver?
How memorable are your team’s interactions with oncologists?
How do oncologists rank your team for performance and satisfaction in 12 key areas?
How does your team compare to the competition—in each area, and overall?
What needs improvement?
Are you delivering the services that are most important to oncologists?
Where do you need to improve?
How can your team enhance its services?
Based on Interviews with Practicing Oncologists
We surveyed 100 US medical oncologists, chosen from the largest community of validated physicians in the world.
Have been practicing for between 3 and 35 years
See at least 5 patients with NSCLC in a typical month
Devote at least 50% of their time to direct patient care
Have interacted with at least one listed product’s medical affairs team in the last 6 months.
We conducted the survey between March 2nd and March 17th, 2016.
MONEY BACK GUARANTEE!
At FirstWord, we stand behind our reports. If you're not completely satisfied, we’ll
refund your money. Guaranteed.
Table of Contents
1 Objectives, Survey Methodology and Sampling, Products Included in the Survey, Executive Summary
2 Current Status of Interactions with Different Medical Affairs Teams
2.1 Interactions in the past 6 months with Medical Affairs teams for each product
2.2 Current frequency of interactions with medical affair teams for each product
3 Competitive Evaluation of Medical Affairs Teams Performance on Various Attributes
3.1 Evaluation of overall quality of interactions with Medical Affairs teams for each product
3.2 Attribute importance of Medical Affairs teams roles to physicians’ practice
3.3 EdgeMap analysis – Competitive evaluation on Medical Affairs teams performance on attributes
3.4 Competitive evaluation of physicians satisfaction of interaction with Medical Affairs teams
3.5 Need-Gap analysis by product
4 Preferred Interaction Media, Frequency, and Suggestions for Improvement
4.1 Preferred interaction media and frequency, and suggestions for improvement
Following are different modes of Licenses.
a. Single User License:
This license allows only one person to use the report. This person can use the report on any computer and may take print outs of the report but must take care of not sharing the report (or any information contained therein) with any other individual or people. Unless you purchase a Site License or a Global Site License, a Single User License must be purchased for every single person that wishes to use the report within the same enterprise.
b. Single Site License:
This license allows unlimited users to use the report within one company location, e.g. a regional office. These users can use the report on any computer and may take print outs of the report but must take care of not sharing the report (or any information contained therein) with any other individual or people.
c. Global Site License:
A Global Site License (or Enterprise wide Site License or Global License) is a license granted to original purchaser, who can share a report with other employees and authorized Users of the same organization.
1. How do you deliver the reports?
The delivery of reports is depends on format & mode of license of report(s). Following are different kinds of formats of report(s) and their delivery options :
a. Electronic Format – Through email from Publisher
Report will be sent to your username email address in PDF, Excel, PowerPoint or any other electronic / softcopy format by publisher.
Delivery Time: 12 to 48 hours [depending on time difference or occurrences of national holidays]
b. Hard Copy or Printed Format or CD-Rom – Through Mail or Courier from Publisher
Report will be sent through mail / courier delivery to your shipping address by publisher.
Delivery Time: Less than, few weeks [depending on time difference or occurrences of national holidays]
2. How can I make payment for publications I purchase?
You could be able to make the payment, in following ways:
a. Online Secure Payment through Credit Card Payment : We accept Visa, Master, AMEX Cards & CCAvenue
b. Transfer of fund to our bank account via Bank transfer or Wire transfer
c. Payment via DD or Cheque
3. Is it safe to use my credit card on MarketinfoResearch?
Your personal information and online tranaction on Marketinfo Research is secure, private, and tamper-proof. All credit card payments are processed through secure and trusted payment gateways.