Menu
Close
.svg)
If I step back and think about one of the broad themes we are seeing across our health care provider (HCP) primary marketing research we conduct these days, one trend is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore: HCP autonomy is narrowing.
Not disappearing -- but certainly narrowing.
Health system protocols, market access constraints, prior authorizations, and increasingly, the influence of EHR workflows and AI-driven decision support increasingly are shaping the context in which decisions are made. In many cases, they are defining it. The result is a practice environment where deviation from the “path of least resistance” requires more effort than it once did.
And that has several important implications.
One of which is that when an HCP elects to prescribe a high-value, and often high-friction, therapy, it is rarely a casual decision. It requires conviction.
Which raises a question that is not asked often enough in our industry:
Where does that conviction come from?
We’ve written extensively about habits: how they are formed, how they are reinforced, and how they shape behavior over time. But habit alone does not explain the adoption of new therapies, especially in today’s environment.
Conviction does. And conviction is rooted in belief.
Nir Eyal’s recent work on belief systems is instructive here. I've been reading his last book, Beyond Belief, with great interest and striving to identify the themes that are relevant for our industry. He argues that our actions are not simply the result of external stimuli or rational calculation, but of internal narratives: beliefs about what is true, what matters, and what we are responsible for. These beliefs shape not only how we behave, but how we interpret the world around us.
In the context of healthcare, this becomes highly consequential.
HCPs are not just processing data. They are interpreting their patients and patient interactions through a lens shaped by their beliefs about disease, responsibility, and their role and duties as a care provider.
And those beliefs can either fuel, or dampen, their conviction to act.
Let's jump immediately into a concrete example. Consider the case of pediatric neuromuscular specialists treating Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD).
Here, the alignment between belief and duty is often profound.
The disease is genetic, severe, and progressive. The patients are young. The trajectory is well understood, and the consequences are stark. There is little ambiguity about the origin of the condition or the need for intervention.
In this context, we have observed that HCPs often experience and articulate a strong sense of moral clarity. Their role is not just to manage patients' symptoms, but to fight -- on behalf of the patient, on behalf of the family, and often, on behalf of time itself.
When that belief system is in place, conviction follows.
And when conviction is present, barriers -- whether administrative, financial, or logistical -- are more likely to be overcome. HCPs advocate. They push. They figure out how to navigate the system. I witnessed a similar phenomenon over decades of working in the infectious diseases space, with passionate, duty-driven HIV-treating HCPs who were staunch advocates for their patients.
For companies operating in these therapeutic spaces, the strategic question is not whether to create conviction, but how to support and amplify it. How to align the brand with the HCP's sense of duty, and how to reinforce the belief that intervention is not just clinically appropriate, but necessary.
Now contrast that with neurologists treating Alzheimer’s disease. Here, the landscape is a bit more ambiguous.
The disease is progressive, but outcomes are often modest. Success, when it occurs, may be incremental. In many cases, the physician’s role is less about reversal and more about management: of symptoms, of sleep, of safety, and of the patient’s broader ecosystem, including the family, the caregivers.
Over time, this shapes a different kind of belief system.
One where the HCP's sense of duty may be oriented less toward aggressive intervention...and more toward preserving quality of life (of patient and caregiver) and minimizing harm. Where the perceived societal return of treatment may be less clear. Where the question is not just “can we treat?” but “should we?”
In that context, high-value therapies can face a different kind of resistance.
Not because the data are insufficient or product itself doesn't have a lot to offer; but because the underlying belief system does not naturally support the level of conviction required to overcome the frictions of prescribing.
This is where belief systems move from being an abstract concept to a strategic variable.
If conviction is required to drive adoption -- and if conviction is rooted in belief -- then understanding those condition-specific (or specialty-specific) belief systems becomes a critical early-stage component of brand strategy.
Not an afterthought. Not something inferred indirectly. But something intentionally studied.
For insights and analytics (I&A) teams, this requires a shift in approach.
We need to move beyond understanding what physicians think about a product, and toward understanding how they see their patients. What they believe about responsibility, about impact, about the role of intervention at different stages of disease.
Qualitative techniques -- narrative elicitation, patient storytelling, contrast cases -- can begin to surface these beliefs. Quantitative approaches can then be used to understand how those beliefs vary across segments and how strongly they influence behavior.
The goal is not to generalize, but to map.
To understand where belief systems naturally align with the value proposition of a therapy, and where they do not.
In high-alignment categories like DMD, the opportunity is to reinforce.
To feed the physician’s sense of duty. To provide evidence, tools, and narratives that support action. To make it easier to do what they already naturally feel compelled to do.
In more complex categories like Alzheimer’s (or other diseases of aging), the challenge is somewhat different.
It is not simply to present data, but to reframe the context in which that data is interpreted. To identify specific patient types -- early-stage individuals, those still working, those with meaningful family responsibilities -- where the impact of treatment can be seen as more tangible, more immediate, and more societally relevant.
In other words, to create pockets of alignment within a broader landscape of ambiguity.
As the practice environment becomes more structured, i.e., more influenced by systems, protocols, and algorithms, the role of individual conviction will only become more relevant.
When everything else pushes toward standardization, it is belief that creates the willingness to deviate. And in many cases, that deviation is exactly what new therapies require.
If habits explain how behavior is triggered, fueled and sustained, belief explains when it is initiated -- and whether it is pursued with conviction.
In an era of increasing contextual constraint, that distinction matters. Because the future of successful brand strategy may not rest solely on differentiation or access.
It may rest on something more fundamental: Whether the therapy aligns with what physicians believe is worth doing.
And that is not something we can afford to leave unexamined, or under-examined.
