The Medical Science Liaison Role in Spain: A Survey Capturing the Opinion of Medical Department Professionals

BACKGROUND

Literature that addresses the role of Medical Science Liaison (MSL) is currently limited. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first survey in Spain that gathers opinions from professionals whose work is either in or related to the medical departments from pharmaceutical companies.

METHODS

A survey delivered by the SurveyMonkey online platform was completed by 101 pharmaceutical industry professionals (medical advisor/manager, 31.7%; medical director, 26.7%; medical information, 12.9%; and MSL manager, 11.9%).

RESULTS

The median score for the global impression of the MSL was 8.7. The collaboration goes beyond formation since 85.1% of the respondents believed that MSLs should actively collaborate in both clinical trials and investigator-initiated studies, they should have more involvement with market access (51.5%), and they play an important role in compliance (94.0%). There was a tendency toward granting MSLs more responsibilities in terms of budget (73.3%) and their participation in the elaboration of the Medical Plan (91.1%). This position was considered as a strategic partner both internally and externally (76.2%).

CONCLUSION

MSL is a well-known field-based profile with increasing importance and responsibilities. MSLs represent a strategic position as internal collaborators in the company, whose success relies on cross-functional work. The MSL's profile is in constant development, currently facing challenges such as adapting to remote interactions, or providing a clear definition with the best metrics to measure their performance as a non-promotional position.

Evaluating Metrics Applied to the Medical Science Liaison (MSL) Role: A Survey-Based Study of Canadian MSL Leaders

INTRODUCTION

Metrics utilized within the Medical Science Liaison (MSL) role are plentiful and traditionally quantitative. We sought to understand the current use and value of metrics applied to the MSL role, including the use of qualitative metrics.

METHODS

We developed a list of 70 MSL leaders working in Canada, spanning 29 companies. Invitations were emailed Jun 16, 2020 and the 25-question online survey was open for 3 weeks. Questions were designed to assess demographics as well as how and why metrics are applied to the MSL role. Data analyses were descriptive.

RESULTS

Responses were received from 44 leaders (63%). Of the 42 eligible, 45% had ≤ 2 years of experience as MSL leaders and 86% supported specialty care products over many phases of the product lifecycle. A majority (69%) agreed or strongly agreed that metrics are critical to understanding whether an MSL is delivering value, and 98% had used metrics in the past year. The most common reason to use metrics was 'to show value/impact of MSLs to leadership' (66%). The most frequently used metric was 'number of health-care professional (HCP) interactions', despite this being seen as having moderate value. Quantitative metrics were used more often than qualitative, although qualitative were more often highly valued.

CONCLUSION

The data collected show a lack of agreement between the frequency of use for some metrics and their value in demonstrating the contribution of an MSL. Overall, MSL leaders in our study felt qualitative metrics were a better means of showing the true impact of MSLs.

Promoting Best Practices for Medical Science Liaisons Position Statement from the APPA, IFAPP, MAPS and MSLS

This position paper is intended to provide recommendations that will help lay the foundation for best practices for medical science liaisons (MSLs) and their activities. Its objective is to outline the roles and responsibilities expected of an MSL and provide clarity on the juxtaposition of MSLs and Sales representatives (SRs) when it comes to scientific exchange versus promotional messaging. It is of utmost importance that industry integrity and ethical standards are assured during external stakeholder engagement as well as medical and scientific communications. This guidance, delivered through the lens of APPA, IFAPP, MAPS and the MSLS executive committees, has been prepared primarily as a supportive resource to assist the Medical Affairs teams in the industry to develop their own set of standard operating procedures (SOPs), codes of conduct and policies within the framework of relevant industry regulations. We acknowledge that whilst there are guidelines already available that provide excellent directive to the MSL function, this paper is a review and distillation of these existing recommendations combined with the perspectives of four peak professional bodies to offer a practically focused resource to help MSLs interact, collaborate and exchange scientific information appropriately with external experts when out in the field.