A healthcare research project differs from one in FMCG or retail from the respondent recruitment stage onward – the regulations, data sensitivity, and accessibility of interviewees are all different. If healthcare market research involving patients, specialist physicians, and payers (NFZ, insurers, hospital decision-makers) is planned, it is worth understanding where standard methodology ends and a healthcare-specific approach begins.
How does healthcare market research differ from projects in other industries?
The specific nature of healthcare market research stems from three overlapping layers: regulatory (GDPR, special category data, pharmaceutical industry codes of ethics, including EFPIA and INFARMA), competency-related (respondents use clinical jargon that the moderator must understand), and access-related (specialist physicians are among the hardest-to-reach respondent groups on the market). In practice, this means that healthcare market research requires a separate recruitment process, dedicated tools, and distinct compliance reporting standards.
A second distinguishing feature is the market’s multi-stakeholder nature. The decision to use a therapy is not made by one person alone – it involves the patient (and often their family), the treating physician, pharmacist, public or private payer, and, in the case of hospital therapies, also drug committees, the medical director, and hospital pharmacy. A research project that ignores any of these perspectives provides only a partial picture. This is why a multi-group approach is standard in pharmaceutical research: parallel research streams involving HCPs (Healthcare Professionals), patients, and payers, linked by a shared analytical framework.
The third dimension is the sensitivity of the subject matter. A patient describing their experience of cancer, psychiatric illness, or a rare disease is not the same type of respondent as a consumer evaluating yogurt packaging. This requires a well-designed discussion guide, a moderator experienced in conducting conversations on difficult topics, and a protocol for situations in which content requiring particular caution emerges during an interview, such as signs of a crisis.
How should research involving patients, physicians, and payers be designed?
Each of the three respondent groups requires a different methodological approach. Patients most often take part in qualitative research: IDIs (in-depth interviews), patient-caregiver dyads, patient diaries (diary studies) conducted over several days to several weeks, and online communities (MROC). Quantitative research with patients uses CAWI or CATI surveys, often recruiting through healthcare panels, patient organizations, or physicians’ offices – although each of these channels has different implications for sample representativeness.
Research with physicians relies on entirely different logistics. Specialists are available only during very limited time windows, and their participation requires appropriate incentives in line with industry codes and EphMRA guidelines. The most commonly used techniques include:
- online TDIs/IDIs (45-60-minute interviews, usually conducted outside working hours),
- mini focus groups (3-4 physicians from the same specialty, rarely larger groups),
- CAWI quantitative research using HCP panels, with verification of professional license numbers,
- chart reviews and case record forms – analysis of anonymized patient cases managed by the physician,
- conjoint analysis and MaxDiff to examine treatment preferences and decision-making factors in drug selection.
Research involving payers (market access research) is the most niche segment. Respondents include reimbursement directors, AOTMiT experts, members of drug committees or pharmacoeconomic committees in hospitals, and representatives of private insurers. Samples are small, often consisting of just over a dozen respondents nationwide, and interviews focus on health technology assessment criteria, HTA models, and the value of RWE (real-world evidence). Here, the standard approach is an IDI conducted by a highly specialized moderator familiar with pharmacoeconomic terminology.
As Hume’s Institute experts point out, a healthcare project does not end with selecting a research technique – its success depends on understanding that each of the three groups has a different language, different motivation to participate, and different regulatory frameworks governing communication. A physician will not respond honestly if the discussion guide sounds like marketing material. A patient will not open up if the recruitment process does not inspire trust. A payer will not engage in a more in-depth conversation if the moderator is not fluent in health technology assessment terminology.
In methodological practice, this means developing separate research tools for each group, with questions validated independently where standardized scales or questionnaires are used, and triangulating findings at the analysis stage. If patients report barrier X, physicians see barrier Y, and payers focus on barrier Z, only combining these three perspectives provides a complete map of the patient journey and decision-making pathway.
What are the most common mistakes in pharmaceutical and healthcare research?
The first and most common mistake is underestimating the time and budget required for recruitment. Standard B2C fieldwork takes two to three weeks; recruiting specialist physicians in a narrow field, such as hemato-oncologists treating a specific indication, can take six to ten weeks. Samples of patients with rare diseases require collaboration with patient organizations and an individual approach to each respondent. Attempting to fit healthcare research into a schedule typical of consumer research results in lower sample quality or broader recruitment criteria at the expense of validity.
The second mistake is treating the patient as a consumer. A patient respondent does not evaluate a product – they describe their experience of illness, treatment, and their relationship with the healthcare system. A discussion guide based on questions such as “what do you think of this packaging?” overlooks key dimensions: fear, trust, adherence, the quality of communication with the physician, and everyday functioning. Tools such as Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) and Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREM) were designed precisely to capture a perspective that traditional marketing tools do not recognize.
The third mistake concerns regulatory compliance. Projects for pharmaceutical companies are subject to additional requirements: procedures for handling safety information, including potential adverse events and product quality complaints reported during the study, strict anonymization procedures, a ban on promotion during the interview, and documentation of compliance with EphMRA and INFARMA codes as well as the client’s internal SOPs. Omitting these layers may result in the research findings being rejected by the commissioning company’s compliance department.
The fourth pitfall is overinterpreting data from small samples. In research involving payers or HTA experts, a sample of 12-15 interviews is standard, but it requires caution when presenting findings – in such cases, the results should be described as qualitative findings rather than percentage distributions. Confusing these two reporting approaches leads to incorrect conclusions on the part of the audience.
An alternative or complement to traditional primary research is secondary data analysis: RWE from reimbursement databases, data from medical registries, and social listening on patient forums. Each of these sources has its limitations, including lack of control over representativeness, coding quality issues, and anonymization barriers, but when combined with primary research, they allow for more comprehensive triangulation.
When is it worth using a mixed-methods approach in healthcare?
Many decisions in the healthcare sector require both depth (why does a patient discontinue therapy?) and scale (what percentage of the patient population does so?). In such cases, a mixed-methods approach – sequentially or concurrently combining qualitative and quantitative techniques – offers an advantage over a single method. Typical configurations used in healthcare projects include:
- An exploratory qualitative phase (IDIs with patients and physicians) – identifying barriers, motivations, and language.
- A quantitative validation phase (CAWI with a larger sample) – quantifying the phenomena identified during the qualitative phase.
- An in-depth phase (workshops or mini focus groups with payers) – interpreting the findings in a systemic context.
This approach works well in patient journey mapping, analysis of adherence barriers, therapy positioning research, and preparing arguments for a reimbursement dossier. In Hume’s Institute projects, pharmaceutical clients are increasingly commissioning not individual studies but research programs spread over 6-12 months, tracking changes in physician and patient attitudes as new therapies are introduced to the market.
Frequently asked questions
How can patients be researched in compliance with GDPR?
Health data are a special category of personal data within the meaning of Article 9 of the GDPR (RODO), which requires both a legal basis under Article 6 of the GDPR and fulfillment of one of the conditions under Article 9. In market research, this is most often based on the respondent’s explicit consent. In practice, this means clear consent for participation in the study and the processing of health data, pseudonymization or anonymization of research materials before they are transferred to the client, and data processing agreements with every fieldwork subcontractor. Audio and video recordings should be stored in an encrypted environment with a defined retention period.
How does research with a physician differ from research with a consumer?
A physician is an expert respondent – they have clinical knowledge, expect a substantive partner on the other side, and have very limited availability. The discussion guide must be prepared by someone who understands the clinical guidelines of the relevant specialty, while incentives must be set in accordance with fair market value and industry codes. In addition, pharmaceutical companies are subject to compliance requirements, including transparency of transfers of value to HCPs in accordance with applicable regulations and codes.
How can hard-to-reach medical respondents be reached?
Standard research panels are not sufficient for rare specialties or patients with low-prevalence diseases. A combination of channels is used: HCP panels with professional license number verification, collaboration with scientific societies, recruitment through physicians’ offices and clinics, patient organizations, social media groups, and snowball sampling. Each channel requires separate validation of sample quality and monitoring for potential recruitment bias.
Learn how Hume’s conducts research in the healthcare sector
If a project involving patients, physicians, or payers is planned and methodological support tailored to healthcare realities is needed, the Hume’s Institute team will be happy to discuss the assumptions and propose an appropriate research design. Get in touch to discuss the details of your project.