Speaking Up: As Patients, As Consumers

(via FDANews -> Pharmalot -> Pharma Marketing Blog)

When a patient has a bad reaction to a prescription drug, that's an adverse event (AE). Those should be reported to the FDA, and healthcare professionals are required to - not only doctors and nurses, but pharmacists and pharmaceutical companies.

New data (2006, but newly published) shows that the number of AE's reported by the consumers themselves has surpassed the number reported by doctors.

FDANews suggests it's because people are more aware of drug-safety issues (after highly publicized problems with drugs like Avandia and Vioxx). Ed and John seem to agree. They also both point out that while the other rates of increase are pretty steady, the rate of consumer reports is pretty much skyrocketing. And John notes that the FDA, post-Vioxx, made it a lot easier for people to submit AE's online.

I'm sure news about adverse events makes people more alert to the possibility that they could have a bad reaction to their medicine - and I think the ease of reporting helps a lot - but I actually think it's bigger than both of those.

John points out that pharmaceutical companies don't seem to be submitting a lot more AE reports, despite the fear that Web 2.0 outreach efforts would cause patients to tell them about AE's and require a lot of expensive, time-consuming new reporting procedures to be put into place. It doesn't seem to be the case. And that fits my theory. We're getting smarter. We know that the company probaby won't be our fastest solution there.

My thought is, Web 2.0 has made us all a lot more personally responsible for our lives as consumers. Whether it's looking up restaurants, comparing shoes, checking out vacation destinations, researching the condition you've just been diagnosed with - we find out what experts and peers and strangers have to say. Just about everybody does it now, and just about nobody did a decade ago.

If you went to the doctor in 1998, would you have rushed off to the library on your way home to yank out the Merck Manual? But now, there's WebMD, there's Medline, there's even Wikipedia.

That we have this ability (and that it's only getting easier) shifts our mindset completely. We are far less likely to accept things, far more likely to know when something happens that we shouldn't accept, and far more able to take action when it does.

Personal accountability. Just another benefit of Web 2.0.

Sad = Fat?

Happy people might have an easier job being thinner, according to a new UCSF study that links increases in serotonin to decreases in fat storage.

Either good news - or heaping insult upon injury - depending upon your situation.

It just makes sense, though. Health is a spiral. If you're treating yourself right and doing good things, it makes it easier to do more of the same, making yourself happier, nicer to be around.... But if you're sacked out on your couch eating Extra Value Meals and rotting your brain in front of the TV, it makes it that much easier to make another bad choice, and another, and another.

Inertia ain't the first Law of Motion for nothing.

On that note, I'm going to go run. (And increase my serotonin.)

Post Number Nine Hundred

Well, damn.

When I started this, I never thought I'd have 900 things to write about. (And perhaps some of you think I haven't, ha ha.)

Then, I was desperately trying to figure out the transition from college - what I wanted to do with my life, how I fit into my professional and personal spheres, how they fit me. All I knew was that I wanted to write about it all while I did it.

Six years later, I'm delighted with where I am, both personally and professionally, but - of course - still trying to figure out how the world fits me, and how I fit it. Less desperation, thankfully, but just as much curiosity.

And this place has changed to match.

I can offer useful commentary on my profession - public relations, the pharmaceutical industry, social media, and how they all fit together.

(However, I still like pop music, silly links, pretty things, and shiny bits of technology. Some things won't ever change.)

Thank you for reading. Sincerely. It's an honor to know that you think I'm worth the time. And while it's always a nice place to air out my opinions, it's ever so much better when it's a conversation.

So I'll try to make sure this stays worth its place in your RSS reader. And don't worry. I'll keep talking in the meantime.

With love and appreciation.

Healthcare Beat Reporters on Social Media

A survey released this morning asked a variety of beat reporters to rank blogs and social media news sources that they valued most highly. I’m looking forward to reading a copy of the full results, but in the meantime, an article with this pull quote about healthcare reporters is interesting (although they seem to be conflating web sites and social media):

The "big four" health sites followed by health care journalists were NIH, WebMD, Mayo Clinic and MSN Health. All of the remaining top 10 sites tested were far less likely to be followed regularly (or at all!) by health care journalists. For health reporters, views on credibility largely mirrored their active engagement. NIH and Mayo were, by far, viewed as the most credible of all sources of health care information, followed by WebMD and MSN Health.

Alongside the article, you can see some graphs on what each beat think of social media. While healthcare reporters didn’t like what it was doing for accuracy or quality in their field, they did like what it was doing for tone, editorial direction and diversity. And either way, they're all very much immersed in it, spending extensive time reading, commenting and writing.

A cool snapshot of how social media are changing journalism from the inside, as well as from the outside.

Overheard at Work

Nobody believes me when I mention the things that come up at work. So today I took notes.

"Okay, so, new this week..."
"Nudist week?"
"Nudist week!"

"Nobody puts pancreatic cancer in the corner."

"You'd flagellate me if I asked you to."

(Context would provide no additional logic, don't worry. And this was only one meeting.)

Be More Social. But Also, Fact-Check.

An overdue explanation and apology for misunderstanding, misinterpreting, jumping to conclusions and just altogether being me.

(Please read this post or this conversation will make zero sense.)

Tracy: A public notice that my reading comprehension skills suck?!
Sarah: Wha?
Tracy: The blog, baby. The blog!
Sarah: It was not! You read his blog and took it personally. Now you read MY blog and take IT personally.
Tracy: Harrumph. Did not.
Sarah: Did too!
Tracy: The post came across to me as... if you don't keep up on technology, you WILL get left behind. Not ME personally, but everyone who doesn't start Twittering.
Sarah: Well, sorta, but it's like, don't just try to figure out how to play these new technologies your way or try to ignore them - keep learning and keep an open mind.
Tracy: See. You have just implied that my reading of his post was incorrect.
Sarah: Not incorrect. I just see it SLIGHTLY different. CRIKEY, LADY.
Tracy: Stop yelling at me biotch!

...some time later...

Tracy: Hey, what if, hypothetically, you got all riled up about the wrong guy?
Tracy: http://www.pr-squared.com/2008/04/get_into_twitter_or_get_outta.html
Tracy: I'm just sayin'.
Tracy: It could happen. You know. Possibly.

Sorry Miss T. You were right. But, then, you already knew that.

Be More Social!

It hit me today that the word "social" is not often used in a positive context.

Seems like it's either used to yell at you for being quiet... "Come be social!"

Or to yell at you for having more to do than the speaker does... "Well, aren't you just the social butterfly." "You and your social calendar."

So maybe that's why I've taken to disliking the term "social media".

I'll tell you one thing, it's a bitch on my tagging, because "new media" stopped being "new" and got all declasse, and now "social media" is ticking me off. "Emerging media" sounds better to me, but pretentious because it's not very widespread. And "SoMe" is still a little eye-roll-worthy.

But seriously. Social media? Think about that. Isn't it kind of the most redundant phrase in the world? Media is communication. Communication is between people. Of course it's social.

Anyway, I wish I could get comfy with a term for what all this is called.

As Tracy and I were leaving work today, she said she'd read that that if she wasn't on Twitter, she should get out of PR. So I went home all riled up about Jeremy Pepper discounting her career because she hasn't joined what is still, whatever we Twitterers want to think, a niche social network. (Maybe there are a million people on Twitter, maybe even 12 million, but there are over 70 million Facebook users.)

Except then I found his post, read it, (wondered why he hasn't updated in over a month,) and totally agreed with him.

Part of his post is on the J&J mommyblogger debacle I've mentioned. But overall he's talking about an issue that I think I see slightly differently. He seems to see an overall attitude toward social media by PR people that includes management apathy, staff incredulity, underfunding, underresourcing, and deliberate attempts to undermine social media structures.

I don't disagree that those things exist, but I think I'm more optimistic about it. Or maybe I just like the solution.

In my company, and in my industry - small agency, pharmaceutical clients - the learning curve is long. But people are learning. And the only way they're going to, is if people who have something to teach, teach. Explain why the old way doesn't work, and what the purpose of the new way is. Use baby steps and easy examples. And don't stop. If you love this stuff, it's easy. If it's fun to talk about new ways to connect with people, and better ways to make things happen, you're exactly who should be teaching.

And then maybe nobody will need to write grouchy blog posts about it.
(I still don't like that it's called "social media," though.)

Weekly Roundup: Girl Stuff

• A lovely few minutes on women's shoes in narrated photos from Paris fashion shows. What I mostly notice is how prevalent black opaque tights are. (via)
• Star Wars as explained by a three-year-old girl. She's right: the shiny guy always worries. (via)
• What is it about My Little Ponies lately? They're everywhere.

Hi from Chicago, where I'm here, had a hysterical night that ended up here, and am working from here. Yesterday I went for a run along the lake and am so glad I did, because today it's too foggy to even see the lake. Today? Work, catching up, History Channel documentary on the 1968 election, IM, and yoga.

Everything's for Sale

This Sunday's New York Times Magazine has an article written by a doctor who used to work for a pharmaceutical company. He was paid to give presentations to other doctors, talking up a particular drug.

If you're familiar with the industry this is nothing new. But, whether you are or not, it's a really interesting read.

This, though, was news to me:

"The American Medical Association is also a key player in prescription data-mining. Pharmacies typically will not release doctors’ names to the data-mining companies, but they will release their Drug Enforcement Agency numbers. The A.M.A. licenses its file of U.S. physicians, allowing the data-mining companies to match up D.E.A. numbers to specific physicians. The A.M.A. makes millions in information-leasing money."

Very interesting. The public is quick to complain about how much data the pharmaceutical industry gets about what doctors prescribe. (And I agree.) But I never understood that the physicians themselves - in the person of their professional organization - are complicit in this. According to this, if the AMA refused to sell their database, companies couldn't track physician prescribing habits.

The doctors actively sell their information, not just permit it to be accessed. A pretty significant difference.

Like I said, interesting stuff. (If this is your sort of thing.)

Damn the Man

Except when The Man is what stands between you and a job. And last week, The Man was me.

We didn't promote a truly amazing person fast enough, so she left, which really sucks. So we're interviewing to replace her.

And there's one girl that I want to email, but I'm afraid it would not go over well, or be legal or appropriate or whatever, so I'll just offer three comments here for general edification purposes.

1. Your portfolio has to be 100% perfect. No mistakes. Yes, I love writing and you do too and that's why you love this kind of work. Yes yes, very touching. But you know what else I'm good at? Editing. And speed reading. And multitasking. So when we are casually chatting and I flip through your portfolio as we are talking, I really am reading it. And when I see "penile code" instead of "penal code" (I wish I were kidding), you are sunk. Done. However, that won't matter if you have already knocked yourself out of the running. So I didn't even mention this to any of the other interviewers because I didn't want to embarrass you. You were already out because - well, keep reading.
2. You have to be on time. I'm always late to things, I get that. But it's just not an option on an interview. Drive the route the day before. Leave an hour early. Whatever. If you're 45 minutes late, you've screwed yourself. But again, that probably won't matter either, if - well, one more thing.
   
3. For the love of God, make your Myspace private. I'm not saying don't have one, but don't make it visible to people who aren't your friends. And if you have a Myspace or a Facebook, make your profile picture innocuous. Just make sure that what you can find online from searches of your name or your email is professional - or better yet, not there at all. Because we will find it, and we will make fun of it, and you will be out of consideration before you even start because you have allowed us to know way too much about you.
   

She was smart and nice and articulate, and does deserve a good job, but she's not getting one here. Sigh.

On Being Blunt

I don't usually talk about work sorts of things here but this is pretty great.

Well. As great as an FDA oncology advisory committee can be. (Provided you don’t own Amgen stock.)

But it's great when people just come out and say what they think. Especially when it's about something important.

The FDA had an advisory committee meeting to talk about two drugs that are supposed to help cancer patients deal with chemotherapy-related anemia. They're trying to figure out whether they help, or whether they can actually make things worse. And it doesn’t sound like anybody pulled any punches.

From Jacob Goldstein’s blog:

Amgen took a beating yesterday as a panel of outside experts convened by the FDA recommended new restrictions on the use of the company’s blockbuster anemia drug Aranesp in cancer patients. We got a strong sense things weren’t going well when WSJ’s Anna Wilde Mathews filed an item from the hearing that quoted one panel member as asking: “What data do you have to assure me that this is not Miracle-Gro for cancer?”

And then from Anna’s story:

The FDA’s Vinni Juneja, a medical officer, offered some veiled – and not-so-veiled – criticism of several studies of the medicines. One of the slides in his presentation asked whether “any ongoing or proposed trials” presented to the same committee in 2004, or since, fully met that panel’s earlier recommendations. The answer, in a giant font, was: “NO.”

Love it.