Corporate Reputation of the Medical Devices Industry – the Patient Perspective
Above is an animated presentation about PatientView’s latest report (optimised for Internet Explorer only). Please click on the ‘Forward’ arrow. The Prezi may take 30 seconds to load, so please be patient. Once loaded, to view in fullscreen, click on ‘More’, and then on ‘Fullscreen’.
This independent study, funded by PatientView, represents patient groups’ latest impressions on the corporate reputation of individual medical device companies. The methodology for the study was formulated in consultation with industry and (separately) with patient groups. For the purposes of this report, the phrase ‘corporate reputation’ is defined as the extent to which medical device companies are meeting the expectations of patients and patient groups. For more details on the participating patient groups, see footnote.
The report looks at the corporate reputation of the medical device industry as a whole, and at the reputation of 18 individual multinational medical device companies—from the perspective of 300 patient groups. The 18 companies analysed are:
• Abbott • Baxter International • B. Braun Melsungen AG • Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD) • Boston Scientific • Coloplast A/S • Fresenius Medical Care (FMC) • GE Healthcare • Johnson & Johnson • Medtronic, Inc • Olympus Medical Systems Business • Philips Healthcare • Roche Diagnostics • Siemens Healthcare • Smith & Nephew • St. Jude Medical, Inc • Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation • 3M Health Care
The study used six indicators to measure company performance
Indicator I. Whether the company has an effective patient-centred strategy. Indicator II. The quality of the information that the company provides to patients. Indicator III. The company’s record on patient safety. Indicator IV. The usefulness of the company’s products to patients. Indicator V. The company’s record of transparency with external healthcare stakeholders. Indicator VI. Whether the company acts with integrity.
Key industry-wide findings
52% of the respondent patient groups believe that the multinational medical device industry has a ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ corporate reputation …
… making the industry the second most-respected sector in healthcare. By way of contrast, the equivalent figure for the pharmaceutical industry is 40%.
But only 33% of the respondent patient groups think that the reputation of the medical device industry has improved during the past five years.
32% of the respondent patient groups say that the industry’s reputation has declined, while 35% believe that its reputation remains has remained unchanged.
64% of the respondent patient groups say that the medical device industry is ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ at being innovative.
57% of the respondent patient groups say that the medical device industry is ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ at ensuring patient safety …
… even though a number of the respondent groups mention recent medical-device-related scandals.
But only 32% of the respondent patient groups say that the medical device industry is ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ at practising ethical marketing.
Just 30% of the respondent patient groups say that that the medical device industry is ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ at being transparent with external healthcare stakeholders.
Just 22% of the respondent patient groups say that that the medical device industry is ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ at adopting fair pricing practices.
Top ranking individual medical device companies
Coloplast ranks first. This company has the best corporate reputation from the patient perspective. Medtronic ranks 2nd. Smith & Nephew 3rd. Roche Diagnostics 4th. Abbott and Johnson & Johnson are joint 5th.
The report also contains comments from respondent patient groups on how companies can improve their corporate reputation (from a patient perspective).
If you wish to purchase this report, the cost of a personal licence is GBP 750.oo.
A company-wide licence (global) is GBP 2,250.oo.
For further information about the ‘Corporate Reputation of the Medical Device Industry—the Patient Perspective’, please contact either Dr Alexandra Wyke or Clive Nead on …
The report is based on the results of a mid-February to late-March 2012 online survey of 300 patient groups, drawn from 42 countries across the world
Geographic remit of the patient groups taking part in this study: Global (two or more regions of the world)—6%; International (two or more countries in each region)—10%; National—51%; Large regional—13%; Local—21%
Main specialties of the patient groups taking part in this study: • Cancer • Carers (various conditions) • Chronic diseases (in general) • Circulatory diseases • Diabetes • Endocrine • Gastrointestinal conditions • General health • HIV/AIDS • Learning disorders • Mental health problems • Neurological conditions • Palliative • Rare diseases • Respiratory conditions • Rheumatological conditions • Sexual health • Skin conditions • Urinary
All results are based on feedback from respondent patient groups that claim to be familiar with the company, and which answered the specific question for each of six above-mentioned indicators for corporate reputation.