From time to time, our clients suggest topics that they are interested in, but for which they would prefer to share the research cost with other interested clients. You can find our research into those topics here. These reports are less expensive than if you were to conduct the research as a custom project because we've spread the cost across multiple purchasers.

Don't see what you're looking for? Contact us to suggest a topic - if other clients are also interested, we'll consider conducting the research and making it available for purchase to everyone at a lower cost.


Physician recommendations and perceptions of personal health wearables and apps: A channel to drive consumer adoption?
07/15/2015
$ Contact us for a price quote

Mobile health solutions are a rising trend as patients seek control over their healthcare, and as providers look to understand patient behavior between visits. This report investigates the current level of interaction between physician perception and awareness of the products that are currently available.

View Abstract
Introduction:

Over 40 smartwatches and tens of thousands of health-related apps saturate the mobile health technology market, and makers are fighting for awareness and adoption. Physicians can serve as key drivers of product adoption by making specific wearable and health app recommendations to their patients, but to date, few companies are exploiting this marketing channel.

This report investigates the nature of physician-patient discourse around wearables and apps, the brands they are currently familiar with, and ultimately when and why they result in physicians recommending a wearable or health app to patients. The report further delves into product features that physicians most value and ones they are most dissatisfied with in the current market.

By segmenting all physician insight across practice type, membership or non-membership in an accountable care organization (ACO), and personal adoption of wearables or health apps, this report invaluably identifies physician segments who are most likely to serve as drivers of mobile health product adoption among patients.  

Scope covered in this report:
  • Understand how physician-patient conversations about wearables and apps are being initiated, how often discussions are occurring, and which physicians are most likely to speak to their patients about wearables and health apps
  • Size the current candidate pool for wearable and apps and identify potential targets for adoption
  • Understand the drivers of physicians’ recommendations of wearables and health apps, identify physicians who are most likely to make recommendations, and determine which changes in wearables and apps are needed to drive recommendations
  • See how physicians segment the market by purpose of use
  • Gauge awareness of wearable and health app brands

Research methodology:
research-methodology1-1.png
View Table of Contents
1.    Executive summary
2.    Introduction
3.    Recruitment and study methodology
4.    ACOs (and practice settings) explained
5.    Respondent Demographics:
  • Figure: Physician practice type (hospital or large health network, independent large group practice, independent small group practice, and solo practice) and membership or non-membership in an Affordable Care Organization (ACO)
  • Figure: Physician patient volume and years in practice
  • Figure: Wearable and health app adoption status of physician, by practice type and physicians that are ACO members vs. non-members
6.    Primary Research findings:
1.    Physician-Patient Discussion of wearables and apps
1.1. Conversation frequency
Percent of patients with whom wearables and apps were discussed
  • Figure: Percentage of all patient-physician interactions
  • Figure: Segment, Percentage of physicians who do or do not use wearables
  • Figure: Segment, Percentage of physicians who do or do not use health apps
  • Figure: Segment, Percentage of physicians by patient volume
  • Figure: Segment, Percentage of physicians who are ACO members vs. non-members
  • Figure: Segment, Percentage of physicians by practice type
  • Figure: Segment, Percentage of physicians by years in practice
1.2. Initiators of Conversation
Initiator of conversations about wearables and apps
  • Figure: Percentage of all conversations
  • Figure: Segment, Percentage of physicians who do or do not use wearables, apps, or both
  • Figure: Segment, Percentage of physicians who are ACO members vs. non-members  and by practice type
  • Figure: Segment, Percentage of physicians by patient volume
2.    Sizing of candidate pool for wearables and apps
2.1. Candidates for adoption of wearables
Candidates of wearables
  • Figure: Average percentage of patients who are candidates
  • Figure: Segment, Percentage of physicians who do or do not use wearables, apps, or both
  • Figure: Segment, Percentage of physicians who are ACO members vs. non-members  and by practice type
2.2. Candidates for adoption of personal health apps
Candidates for an app
  • Figure: Average percentage of patients who are candidates
  • Figure: Segment, Percentage of physicians who do or do not use wearables, apps, or both themselves
  • Figure: Segment, Percentage of physicians who are ACO members vs. non-members and by practice type
3.    Recommendations
3.1 Likelihood to recommend
Percentage of candidate patients to whom physician recommends wearable
  • Figure: Average percentage of candidates to whom a recommendation is made
  • Figure: Segment, Percentage of physicians who are ACO members vs. non-members, by practice type, and percentage of physicians who do or do not use wearables, apps, or both
Percentage of candidate patients to whom physician recommends health app
  • Figure: Average percentage of candidates to whom a recommendation is made
  • Figure: Segment, Percentage of physicians who are ACO members vs. non-members, by practice type, and percentage of physicians who do or do not use wearables, apps, or both
3.2 Recommendation acceptance
Wearables
  • Figure: Lack of knowledge of patient acceptance of wearable device recommendations
Wearables: Percentage of patients who accept physician’s recommendation of wearable
  • Figure: Average percentage of patients who accept recommendation
  • Figure: Segment, Percentage of physicians who do or do not use wearables, apps, or both themselves
  • Figure: Segment, ACO physicians by practice type
  • Figure: Segment, non-ACO physicians by practice type
Health apps
  • Figure: Lack of knowledge of patient acceptance of health app recommendations
  • Figure: Segment, non-ACO physicians by practice type
Health apps: Percentage of patients who accept physician’s recommendation to use health app
  • Figure: Average percentage of patients who accept recommendation
  • Figure: Segment, Percentage of physicians who do or do not use wearables, apps, or both themselves
  • Figure: Segment, ACO physicians by practice type
 
3.3 Reasons to recommend
Reasons to recommend a personal health wearable or app
  • Figure: Percentage of all physicians choosing each reason
  • Figure: Comparison of reasons across all physician segments
  • Figure: Comparison of physician segments across all reasons
3.4 Changes needed to recommend wearables
Changes needed for more frequent recommendation of wearables
  • Figure: Ranking of changes by physicians
Percentage of physicians believing each change will increase recommendations, comparison across all physician segments
  • Figure: Clinical data that shows their use improves health outcomes
  • Figure: Lower Price
  • Figure: Easier ways to import data from wearables into the patient’s EHR/chart
  • Figure: Insurance coverage to defray the cost of the wearable
  • Figure: Showing the data in ways that are easier to understand for the patient
  • Figure: Insurance rebates to patients for continued use of a wearable
  • Figure: More sustained engagement between the patient and the wearable to increase compliance
  • Figure: Better manufacturer instructions and support for patients on using the wearable
  • Figure: Guidance from manufacturers on which patients would be best served by the wearable
  • Figure: Better manufacturer information and support for nurses and physicians on using the wearable
  • Figure: Comparison of all changes across all physician segments
 
4.    Purpose of Use
4.1 Monitoring health
  • Figure: Percent of patients who use a health app or wearable for monitoring their health and/or disease, comparison across all physicians segments
4.2 Diagnosis / Treatment of Disease
  • Figure: Percent of patients who use a health app or wearable for disease diagnosis, comparison across all physicians segments
  • Figure: Percent of patients who use a health app or wearable for disease treatment (includes compliance solutions), comparison across all physicians segments
5.    Awareness of Wearable Brands and Apps
Awareness of wearable brands
  • Figure: Percentage of all physicians aware of each brand
  • Figure: Comparison across all physician segments
Familiarity of wearable brands
  • Figure: Percentage of all physicians choosing brand as most familiar
  • Figure: Comparison across all physician segments
Awareness of wearable apps
  • Figure: Percentage of all physicians aware of app
  • Figure: Comparison across all physician segments
Awareness of personal health apps
6.    Brand attribute maps for wearables
  • Overview: Brand attribute map
  • Figure: Most influential attributes on physician willingness to recommend a brand
Brand attribute maps
  • Figure: All physicians
  • Figure: App-using physicians
  • Figure: App and wearable-using physicians
  • Figure: Non-adopter physicians
  • Figure: Wearable-using physicians
  • Figure: Physicians in hospitals or large health networks
  • Figure: Physicians in independent large group practices
  • Figure: Physicians in independent small group practices
  • Figure: Physicians in solo practices
  • Figure: Physicians who are members of an ACO
  • Figure: Physicians who are not part of an ACO
---------
  • Figure: Impact of wearable brands on patients
Purchase

Already purchased this item? Login/View your account to download

2014 Hospital Capital Expenditures: Hospital CEOs and CFOs Detail Spending Priorities in Robotic Surgery, Radiation Oncology, and Digital Mammography
03/01/2014
$ Contact us for a price quote

This report examines trends in hospital capital expenditures, with particular focus on purchasing intent in robotic surgery, radiation oncology, and mammography.

View Abstract
Introduction:

Capital expenditure budgets are under increasing scrutiny by hospital executives. Hospital capital spending is approximately 25% of total operating costs: maintaining current facilities, new construction, IT, and medical equipment comprise the largest spending areas. Recent trends have placed increased pressure on hospital budgets, and executives must carefully consider large medical equipment investments. This report details the factors that strongly impact hospital CFOs’ and CEOs' medical equipment purchasing plans and quantifies their expected 2014 spending in key medical equipment markets.

Scope covered in this report:
  • Quantify changes to 2014 hospital capital expenditure budgets
  • Understand factors impacting budget, such as Affordable Healthcare Act guidelines, patient volume, and reimbursement pressures
  • Assess capital expense spending priorities
  • Rank factors impacting medical equipment spending
  • Determine current utilization and expected spending in robotic surgery, radiation oncology, and digital mammography
  • Determine current utilization and expected purchase of the da Vinci surgical system, linear accelerator, CyberKnife, and tomosynthesis (3D mammography) equipment
Research methodology:
research-methodology2.png
View Table of Contents
  • Executive summary
  • Overview of Hospital Capital Expenditures
    • Hospital expenditure overview
    • Impact of Affordable Healthcare Act on hospital capital expenditures
    • Robotic Surgery and da Vinci Surgical System overview
    • Radiation Oncology and CyberKnife overview
    • Digital mammography and tomosynthesis (3D mammography) equipment overview
  • Primary Research Results
    • General Budget Expectations
      • Figure: Percentage of admitting physicians who are hospital employees in 2014 compared to 2013
      • Figure: Expectations for patient admissions volumes in 2014 compared to 2013
      • Figure: Expectations for total hospital capital budget in 2014 compared to 2013
      • Figure: Capital budget allocation
      • Figure: Expectations for capital budget allocation changes between 2013 and 2014
      • Figure: Impact of factors on overall 2014 capital budget
      • Figure: Impact of factors on informational technology budget in 2014
      • Figure: Impact of factors on medical equipment budget in 2014 (tier-one)
      • Figure: Impact of factors on medical equipment budget in 2014 (tier-two)
    • Robotic Surgery Expectations
      • Figure: Changes in total procedure volume for robotic surgery, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014
      • Figure: Specialties performing robotic procedures, 2013 and 2014
      • Figure: Hospitals that currently own a da Vinci surgical system and utilization rate of da Vinci surgical system
      • Figure: Hospital plans to purchase da Vinci surgical system in 2014
      • Figure: Impact of considerations driving da Vinci surgical system purchase in 2014
      • Figure: Impact of considerations of future investment in robotic surgery
    • Radiation Oncology
      • Figure: Current presence of radiation oncology services and linear accelerator
      • Figure: Changes in total procedure volume for radiation oncology
      • Figure: Plan to purchase new linear accelerator in 2014
      • Figure: Considerations impacting purchase of new linear accelerator
      • Figure: Impact of reimbursement on capital investments in radiation oncology
      • Figure: Current use of CyberKnife and plan to purchase
      • Figure: Changes in total volume for CyberKnife procedures, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014
    • Mammography
      • Figure: Hospitals that currently own digital mammography system
      • Figure: Manufacturers used for digital mammography
      • Figure: Changes in total procedure volume for digital mammography, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014
      • Figure: Plans to buy 3D mammography system in 2014
      • Figure: Hospitals that currently own 3D mammography systems and plans to buy 3D mammography system in 2014
      • Figure: Considerations impacting purchase of new digital mammography system
      • Figure: Impact of reimbursement on capital investments in digital mammography
  • Demographics of Survey Respondents:
    • Figure: Location of Hospital
    • Figure: Current role: CFO or CEO
    • Figure: Type of Hospital
    • Figure: Years in Hospital role
    • Figure: Hospital nonprofit status
    • Figure: Hospital network status
Purchase

Already purchased this item? Login/View your account to download

Short Bowel Syndrome and the Opportunity for NPS Pharma’s Gattex – Expected adoption and hurdles for a $295,000 orphan drug
05/01/2013
$ Contact us for a price quote

This report examines the market size and barriers to drugs launching for this rare disease, and details the potential for NPS Pharma's Gattex in this market.

View Abstract
Introduction:

Short bowel syndrome (SBS) is a condition in which a patient suffers from diarrhea, malabsorption, malnutrition, and fluid and electrolyte imbalances due to the loss of small intestine. Common causes of small intestine loss are bowel resection due to Crohn’s disease or traumatic injury (loss of blood flow to a portion of the intestine being the most common), or due to cancer or infectious disease. Very few branded agents have been approved for SBS; most treatment involves generically-available supportive therapy. Two orphan drugs have launched for the indication: EMD Serono’s Zorbtive (somatropin) was approved in 2003, though the expiration of its exclusivity has ushered in the launch of several other versions of somatropin, and, recently, NPS Pharma’s Gattex.

Scope covered in this report:
  • Size and segment the SBS patient population managed by treating physicians
  • Assess current treatment of SBS in regards to parenteral support
  • Understand current levels and sources of familiarity with Gattex
  • Determine primary hurdles to Gattex prescription
  • Size and segment the patient population eligible for Gattex use
  • Quantify expected trial and usage of Gattex by the end of 2013
  • Determine expected performance on clinical endpoints to drive continued use of Gattex
Research methodology:
research-methodology1-1.png
View Table of Contents
  • Executive summary
  • Short bowel syndrome: Clinical context
    • SBS: Disease and treatment overview
    • SBS: Surgical and drug treatment options
    • NPS Pharma’s Gattex: Drug overview
    • NPS Pharma’s Gattex: Label and clinical trial performance
    • NPS Pharma’s Gattex: Cost
  • Primary research results:
    • Current treatment of SBS patients
      • Figure: Number of SBS patients currently managed by respondents
      • Figure: Percentage of current SBS patients on each type of therapy
      • Figure: Number of new SBS patients placed on each form of therapy
      • Figure: Percentage of SBS patients currently on parenteral support treatment
      • Figure: Times per week SBS patients are on parenteral support treatment
    • Gattex familiarity and preparedness for use
      • Figure: Gattex familiarity
      • Figure: Source of Gattex familiarity
      • Figure: Have had patient request for Gattex
      • Figure: Frequency of patient requests
      • Figure: Percentage of surveyed gastroenterologists who have seen a Gattex sales rep
      • Figure: Percentage of surveyed gastroenterologists who are REMS certified for Gattex
    • Sizing the available patient population for Gattex use
      • Figure: Percentage of SBS patients fitting on-label criteria for Gattex
      • Figure: Percentage of SBS patients fitting Gattex’s on-label criteria who are good candidates for Gattex
    • Gattex prescribing volumes: Current and future
      • Figure: Number of patients who have been prescribed Gattex
      • Figure: Percentage of current SBS patients filling Gattex prescriptions
      • Figure: Percentage of SBS patients fitting label who will be on Gattex by end of 2013
      • Figure: Percentage of parenteral support patients expected to be on Gattex by end of 2013
      • Figure: Preference for measurement of Gattex efficacy/response
      • Figure: Average reduction expected in efficacy measurement
      • Figure: Length of time to treat patients before decision that there is no response to Gattex
      • Figure: Minimum TPN weekly volume reduction for Gattex therapy continuation
    • Obstacles to Gattex use
      • Figure: Rating of Gattex (0 = no clinical benefit; 10 = most clinical benefit)
      • Figure: Unaided reasons not to prescribe Gattex (apart from reimbursement)
      • Figure: Percentage of physicians believing a colonoscopy is an obstacle to Gattex use
      • Figure: Percentage of patients who could start Gattex without colonoscopy
      • Figure: Aided reasons not to prescribe Gattex
  • Demographics of survey respondents
    • Figure: Years in practice
    • Figure: SBS patients personally treated per year
    • Figure: Percent of time spent in clinical practice
Purchase

Already purchased this item? Login/View your account to download

Free resources

Sample Panel Discussion Transcript
05/15/2014
$

This sample transcript is from a panel discussion of eight psychiatrists, and exemplifies the type of qualitative feedback this research modality can generate from both designed questions and probing from the moderator.

View Abstract
This sample transcript is from a panel discussion held after the 2007 APA meeting. The research objectives of the panel were to review information presented at the conference and discuss up-to-date treatment practices for adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Specifically, MedPanel researchers wanted to understand psychiatrists' opinions on:

A) Pharmacotherapeutic options including:
  • OROS methylphenidate
  • Atomoxetine (Eli Lilly’s Strattera)

B) Specific considerations in the prescription of each of the above drugs including dosing and side effects

C) Potential pharmacotherapeutic options including:
  • Guanfacine (Tenex)
  • Lisdexamfetamine (Shire Pharmaceuticals)
  • SPD465 (Shire Pharmaceuticals)
D) The incidence of co-morbidities associated with ADHD including bipolar disorder and substance

E) Desvenlafaxine, a new serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI)

View Table of Contents
Questions asked of panelists include:



Q1: Experience with Q1: Experience with adult ADHD
Please describe your experience with ADHD in adults. What has been the trend of the number and types of patients who you have diagnosed with this disorder? Do you think that the number of adult patients identified with this disorder will change in the next five years, and if so, how? What has been the response of patients when they have been given this diagnosis?
Q2: OROS Methylphenidate
Please see the abstract about OROS methylphenidate in adults. What is your opinion of this study? How does this data affect your clinical practice? How might it affect your choice of medication?
Q3: Atomoxetine
Please review the abstract about atomoxetine. Do you perceive the same benefits in executive function among your patients taking this medication? How do you use this medication relative to other drugs to treat ADHD in adults? Does this data impact how you might use this medication in adult ADHD?
Q4: Guanfacine
Please review the attached abstract about the use of an extended release formulation of guanfacine in children. What is your opinion of this type of medication to treat ADHD – please review its strengths and weaknesses. Do you think this medication has a place in the treatment of adults with ADHD? How do you think the use of this medication would affect your current treatment practices if it were approved for adult use?
Q5: Lisdexamfetamine
Please review the abstract about the use of lisdexamfetamine in children. What is your opinion of this type of medication to treat ADHD – please review its strengths and weaknesses? Do you think this medication has a place in the treatment of adults with ADHD? How do you think the use of this medication would affect your current treatment practices if it were approved for adult use?
Q6: SPD465
Please see the phase III trial results for SPD 465 in the attached abstract. What is your opinion of these results? If this drug were to become available, how would it affect your choice of medications to treat adult ADHD? What concerns might you have about this drug?
Q7: Psychiatric co-morbidities in adult ADHD patients
A few of the conference abstracts discuss ADHD and potentially confounding psychiatric co-morbidities including bipolar disorder, depression and anxiety, eating disorders, personality disorders, and substance abuse. Please review the attached abstract about bipolar disorder and depression in young adults with ADHD. How do these findings compare to your own experience of treating adults with ADHD? Do you believe that older adults with ADHD have a similar prevalence of these co-morbidities?
Q8: OROS methylphenidate and mood disorders
Please review the attached abstract about the use of OROS methylphenidate in adults with ADHD and co-morbid depression or anxiety. Has it been your experience that response to stimulants appears to be independent of a history of anxiety and depression? Have you found that treatment for depression        or anxiety does not interfere with the response to stimulant therapy? Do you think of treatment of mood disorders as being part of a holistic response to patients with ADHD? What medications do you use most regularly to treat mood disorders in patients with ADHD?
Q9: Desvenlafaxine
Please review the attached abstracts about desvenlafaxine. What is your overall impression of this medication? What do you think are its strengths and weaknesses? How might you perceive utilizing this medication if it is approved? Given its similar mechanism to atomoxetine, could it possibly be used in the treatment of ADHD?
Q10: Most compelling information at APA
What do you expect to be the most compelling information coming out of APA this year? Why do you say this?

Login/Register To View