“They Said What?” Recommendations for Capturing the Voice of Authors in Asia Pacific Region

Aug 1, 2023 | News and Trends

Gia Montemuro, BeiGene; Haruko Isomura, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd; Ronnie Lin, Hasten Pharma; Tim Stentiford, MediTech Media Asia Pacific Pty Ltd; Jonathan Lee, Takeda Pharmaceuticals International AG – Singapore Branch

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of their employers or of ISMPP. This article is for informational purposes only and should not be used as legal or regulatory advice.

Email your questions and comments on this article to TheMAP@ismpp.org.

Many Have Been There…

A publication about a global, multicenter study has a geographically diverse author list, and it’s impossible to find a time to hold a live kick-off meeting with everyone. The publication professionals are based in North America and Europe and most authors are located there as well, so a meeting time inconvenient for authors in the Asia Pacific region (APAC) is chosen and few can attend. Due to the call’s impractical timing, the authors from APAC don’t offer insights so the publication professionals cannot document their contribution beyond attendance.

Read on to discover insights discussed during the 19th Annual Meeting of ISMPP (April 2023) that may help publication professionals pre-empt situations like the one above, and be sure to look at the Rewind callout box below to learn how this scenario could go differently.

Key Takeaways

  • It is important for publication professionals to consider the different cultural and communication norms in APAC
  • Modify working practices for publications development, within good publication practice (GPP), to include preferred methods of contact, language, and response for APAC-based stakeholders
  • Consider the needs of APAC-based authors and the ways these authors wish to interact with scientific data and publications during the publications planning/development process

Different Norms, Same Goal

Just as people have learning styles that vary between individuals, societal norms can vary significantly between cultures. Publication professionals operating in North America or Europe may not be aware of how their communications norms and preferences differ from those of their peers and authors based in APAC.

For instance, many APAC cultures tend to be consensus-seeking and adhere to a more structured hierarchy than in North America or Europe. Consensus and hierarchy are both functions of respect, which is also more pronounced in some cultures, particularly in Asia, than in North America or Europe. The importance of respect must be considered in contexts where feedback is requested, as junior authors may defer to or not expand upon the senior author’s opinion, especially during live meetings or in a group email. Requesting feedback one-on-one from an individual can improve the frequency and quality of response because it removes the pressure of contributing an opinion that may not be shared by the group or more senior individuals.

Furthermore, English is not the primary language spoken in much of the world1,2 and email is not always the preferred mode of contact. Sending an email request solely in English to an APAC-based healthcare practitioner (HCP) author risks alienating them. Translating commonly-sent messages (such as general review requests and publication management system instructions) into local languages and sending alongside the English message/content can facilitate engagement from authors and lower linguistic barriers. Engaging the help of an individual who speaks both languages fluently also supports this aim, because the author can be confident their full response will be translated and shared appropriately. Publications professionals should also consider that getting help from a local affiliate may add to project timelines, so additional planning and communication may be needed early in the project’s development to manage the wider team’s expectations on timing. Flexibility regarding acceptance and compliant documentation of non-email forms of response (e.g., local messaging applications or written records of in-person meetings) per the sponsoring organization’s standard operating procedure can further improve inclusion of authors with different communications preferences, especially when local language responses are accepted.

Another helpful method for drawing insights is to include specific open-ended questions, developed by the sponsor and/or medical writer, about the content on the draft or in an accompanying message during review portions of the publication process. This approach gives authors a clear starting point to provide their views, allowing them to contribute in a manner that utilizes the unique knowledge which qualified them for authorship and providing an opportunity to focus attention on places where author input is expected and most needed, often in the background, discussion, and results sections.

Due to their expertise, the HCP is seen as the “highest-ranking” person in the room in most APAC-based healthcare settings, so they expect a certain level of respect, such as with face-to-face interactions. Most publications are managed virtually, so the inability of a publication professional to meet with an APAC-based HCP author may be interpreted as disrespectful. Obtaining assistance from the sponsoring organization’s local affiliate team to schedule face-to-face connection is one way to signal respect, as the local affiliate is likely able to travel in-person to the author and speak with them in their local language. With proper training on GPP3,4, local affiliates can be an invaluable asset to communicate with APAC authors.

Related to the seniority of HCPs in APAC cultures, patients will respect the authority of HCPs for information about their condition and required treatment. Although it is common for patients to defer to HCPs to learn what’s needed to manage their condition, the accessibility of the Internet allows patients seeking more information to discover enhanced publication content, such as plain language summaries. However, many publication extenders are developed and hosted by journals only in English, so even if the document is accessible to the patient, it may not be practical for them. Translating publication extenders into key local languages can help widen readership. For instance, publication professionals can consider the primary language of key audiences and investigate potential translation options during the publication development process, especially if the publication’s content concerns a disease state especially relevant to a certain region. Some publishers, such as Lancet Global Health, already include translation options in their publication review process and could be effective partners in reaching wider audiences. Generally, additional attention to the APAC region and the diverse audiences and languages spoken within it is needed at the publication planning stage, along with the understanding that the process of translating publication extenders to a local language is complex and may need support from additional stakeholders, such as journal publishers.

Publication professionals and authors in all regions share the desire to develop the best quality publication possible, a commitment to respecting the established norms of GPP, and dedication to advancing science and improving the lives of patients; these commonalities can be used to further support open communication and good faith, both of which are the building blocks of a successful partnership for publication development.

Rewind

With the above recommendations in mind, consider how the scenario from earlier could go differently:

Although a live kick-off meeting cannot accommodate everyone involved due to the broad geographic distribution of the author group, the publication professionals find additional times to hold a second call, which allows more authors to attend. Some authors do not provide comment during the meeting, but the publication professionals compile all feedback from the discussion and distribute it to all authors, asking them to respond individually. This provides an additional opportunity for authors to share their insights in case they were unable to do so during the call, ensuring that the authors contribute to the publication’s content and meet ICMJE authorship criteria while also allowing the publication professional to document it.

Although this version was not without hiccups, the outcome was much smoother than in the original.

Call to Action

Publication professionals need to embrace the diversity of cultures and communication norms outside North America or Europe. With diversity and inclusion becoming increasingly visible, it makes sense to involve regions that have previously been overlooked or marginalized. First steps towards a more inclusive publications environment can and should include:

  • Education about, consideration of, and respect for different communication preferences individuals in APAC may hold.
  • Publication professionals can organize grassroots initiatives to drive interaction and collaboration with their local and regional peers within APAC, thus establishing a forum for engagement and knowledge sharing (consider a recent collaboration between the Australasian Medical Writers Association [AMWA] and ISMPP, in which the latter sponsored AMWA’s Annual Meeting and supported workshops on GPP, expanding access to educational activities and strengthening the publication professional community).
  • Publication professionals can expand their research to include more studies of publications activities in APAC, perhaps by evaluating the impact that the recommendations in this article have when implemented into the development process, and submit results to ISMPP as an abstract for potential presentation at an ISMPP meeting.

Including the APAC region at the planning table and engaging in an effective manner with APAC-based individuals can only improve the goal that all publication professionals share: to ensure effective communication about potentially life-changing therapies for patients.

References

  1. Cochrane. Cochrane evidence in different languages. Available at: https://www.cochrane.org/news/cochrane-evidence-different-languages. Accessed May 2023.
  2. Hesp B, Dolben W, Lee J. Publication planning outside of the global setting – the need to embrace regional diversity to better support patients. Parallel session at: ISMPP Annual Meeting; April, 2023; Washington, DC, USA.
  3. DeTora LM, Toroser D, Sykes A, et al. Good Publication Practice (GPP) Guidelines for Company-Sponsored Biomedical Research: 2022 Update [published online ahead of print August 30, 2022]. Ann Intern Med. doi:10.7326/M22-1460.
  4. Hesp BR, Arai K, Bose N, et al. Applying the good publication practice 2022 guidelines in the Asia-Pacific region: a practical guide. Curr Med Res Opin. 2023;36(6):919-931. doi:10.1080/03007995.2023.2214433.

Disclosures

HI is an employee of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd and serves on ISMPP CMPP Certification Board and ISMPP’s The MAP Newsletter Working Group; JL is an employee of Takeda Pharmaceuticals International AG – Singapore Branch, holds Takeda stock, and is the APAC trustee on the ISMPP Board of Trustees; RL is an employee of and/or holds stock at Hasten Pharma; GM is an employee of and holds stock at BeiGene and serves on ISMPP’s The MAP Newsletter Working Group; TS is an employee of MediTech Media Asia Pacific Pty Ltd, a Nucleus Global agency, and serves on the Asia Pacific workstream of the ISMPP Advocacy & Outreach Committee.

%d bloggers like this: