Menu
Close
.svg)
Before anything else, let me begin where I should have begun 30 years ago: a sincere and profuse thank you.
Thank you for making time, often between patients, between cases, or after hours, to share candid feedback, including when we get it wrong.
Over three decades of conversations with physicians across specialties, practice settings, and geographies, one thing has remained constant in my professional life as a marketing researcher serving the pharmaceutical industry: when doctors speak openly about what they experience, what they need, and what they worry about, better decisions follow. Not always perfect decisions; but certainly better ones. More grounded. More human.
And ultimately, those better decisions contribute to something that matters far beyond any individual study: the development of therapies that improve, and in many cases, save, patients’ lives.
For those of us who sit on the other side of the table (or screen), it has been (and will continue to be) both a privilege and a responsibility to meet you there.
Marketing research conducted for pharmaceutical, medical device, and diagnostics companies is not always glamorous. No physician has ever said, “Gosh, I can’t wait to take a 20-minute survey after a full day of patient care.” Fair enough.
But behind those surveys and interviews is something far more consequential than the format might suggest.
Drug and device development is, at its core, a series of high-stakes decisions made under significant uncertainty. Promising molecules fail. Clinical pathways evolve. Assumptions that look elegant on paper meet the complexity of real-world patient care and workflows in offices, hospitals, and health systems.
At each of these inflection points, your perspective acts as a stabilizing, risk-reducing force. You are not just “respondents.” You are the bridge between theory and practice: the ones who can tell us what actually happens when a guideline meets a real patient with real constraints.
Without that translation, decision-making becomes abstract. With it, decisions become anchored; and more likely to lead to therapies that truly make a difference for patients.
It’s no secret that physician participation in research has declined over time. And honestly, that’s understandable.
Your time is under relentless pressure. Administrative demands have expanded. Clinical complexity has increased. The idea of adding “one more thing” to the day can feel, at best, impractical; and at worst, mildly offensive. We know many of you are burned out.
At the same time, the pace of innovation in medicine has accelerated, particularly with the integration of AI into research and development. More therapies. More mechanisms. More data. More decisions.
Which means the need for informed, experience-based physician input has not diminished -- it has grown.
There is a paradox here: just as your time becomes more constrained, the value of your perspective becomes more essential.
From a behavioral standpoint, we know that when effort increases and perceived impact decreases, participation drops. The responsibility falls on the research industry to correct that imbalance: to make participation more efficient, more respectful of your time, and more clearly impactful.
Let me acknowledge something directly: not all research experiences have been good ones.
Some moderators haven’t been adequately prepared. Some surveys have been repetitive to the point of frustration. Some sessions have run long, where “just five more minutes” somehow turns into fifteen.
And then there’s scheduling. Or rescheduling. Or rescheduling the reschedule.
These are not minor inconveniences. They erode trust. And trust, once lost, is difficult to rebuild.
The good news is that the health care marketing research industry is not unaware of these issues. There is a growing emphasis on improving the physician research experience: better-prepared moderators, more thoughtful study design, clearer time boundaries, and yes -- fewer redundant questions (or at least fewer that feel like déjà vu with a clipboard).
Is it perfect? Not yet. Is it improving? Meaningfully so.
Let’s address the obvious: compensation matters. Your time is valuable, and it should be treated that way.
But if that were the only benefit, participation would feel purely transactional. And many of you might, understandably, opt out.
What tends to be less discussed is the professional value of these interactions.
Participation offers a structured moment of reflection. In the pace of patient care, there are few opportunities to step back and articulate how you’re thinking about a therapy, a treatment pathway, or an unmet need. Research conversations create that space.
They also provide a window, albeit indirect, into broader patterns. While confidentiality is preserved, well-designed discussions often surface themes that resonate across peers. There’s a subtle calibration that occurs: Am I the only one seeing this? (You rarely are.)
In some cases, research also offers an early look at what may be coming next: emerging therapies, evolving treatment approaches, and innovations that could meaningfully impact patient care. At its best, this is where insight and anticipation meet.
And occasionally (& let’s be honest) there’s the simple pleasure of a genuinely good conversation. Where a trained professional is asking you thoughtful questions, following up properly and really, really listening to you. The kind where time moves quickly, ideas sharpen, and you walk away thinking, “That was actually… interesting.”
Speaking personally as an interview moderator, that remains the highest compliment.
From a behavioral science perspective, dialogue is uniquely powerful. Surveys can quantify, but conversations illuminate.
They reveal not just what you think, but how you think: how you weigh trade-offs, how you interpret ambiguity, how you adapt when real-world complexity refuses to follow the script.
Those nuances really matter. They shape everything from clinical trial design to patient education strategies to how therapies are ultimately positioned and supported in real-world practice.
And yes, they often emerge in unexpected ways. Some of the most valuable insights I’ve heard have come immediately after a participant says, “This might sound strange, but…”-- which is usually a signal that something important is about to be said.
So here is the ask, offered with genuine respect for your time and your experience:
And if you do choose to engage again, hold us accountable. Expect preparation. Expect efficiency. Expect a conversation worth having.
Over the years, I’ve come to believe that the most valuable outcomes of research are not always the ones that appear in reports or presentations. They are the incremental shifts in understanding that accumulate over time, subtly fostering better questions, better decisions, and ultimately, better care.
And at the far end of that chain are patients: benefiting from therapies that are more informed, more practical, and more aligned with the realities of care because physicians like you took the time to share your perspective.
Those shifts are built on conversations. On your willingness to say what you see, what you’ve learned, and what still doesn’t sit quite right.
So, thank you -- for what you’ve already given, and for what you might still choose to give.
And selfishly, I’ll admit: I hope we get to keep having these conversations. The thoughtful ones. The challenging ones. The slightly messy ones. Even the ones where you politely (or not so politely) point out that a question could only have been written by someone who hasn’t spent much time in a hospital or physician office.
Those, too, are invaluable.
