Sector: Healthcare

As COVID-19 looks to dominate governments’ policies and health budgets deep into 2022, what lessons have we learned from a second pandemic-affected year? And what do these lessons tell us of our future health landscape?

Earlier in 2021, I wrote a blog post in which I envisaged what post-pandemic work and health culture would look like. Nearly a year on, we’re still waiting for the post-pandemic world, but this year has been an incredible year for health professionals worldwide, with more than half of the world’s adults having received at least one vaccination against COVID-19.

While this is great news for most of us, much of the developing world still does not enjoy the same access to vaccines. Just as we appeared to be getting on top of the Delta variant, Omicron emerged in Southern Africa, possibly because in part of a lack of vaccine availability.

Which brings me to my first lesson:

1) Global challenges require global solutions

We have seen governments take something of a unilateral approach to COVID-19 policy, even within the European Union (EU). For future pandemics, national governments, international health bodies and the pharmaceutical sector must work together to ensure a fair and uniform solution to suppress the spread.

2) Faith in pharma has grown – but varies around the world

The effectiveness of vaccines has been proven in reducing hospitalisation and death rates dramatically among the infected. A by-product of the international fightback against COVID-19 in 2021 has been the enhanced reputation of the pharmaceutical sector.

As Grayling’s own research of 3,000 adults worldwide found in mid-2021, nearly half (49%) of those surveyed view the pharmaceutical industry more positively now than before the pandemic. Our study also found that people are more aware now of what the pharma industry does and its leading brands.

3) People are more comfortable sharing their health data

As of September 2021, more than 16 million people in the UK had downloaded the NHS App. As I wrote earlier this year, I believe people are becoming more confident in sharing their health data, so long as it is used carefully and for their benefit and for wider societal good. With the prospect of needing to prove vaccination and booster history to enter venues and travel internationally, I fully expect take-up to continue apace throughout 2022.

4) Communication must be clear and consistent, but with scope to be flexible

For me, the best communicators during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic have been healthcare professionals. We saw that when the Government kept the message simple, for example ‘Hands. Face. Space’ it was generally understood and likely to lead to high compliance. When messages became more nuanced, or indeed were undermined by other external factors, it was harder to maintain a consistent narrative. For many people some of the standout communicators this year were our medics and public health experts, including England’s deputy Chief Medical Officer Jonathan Van-Tam, whom PR Week listed as one of the year’s top UK communicators.

In recent weeks especially we have seen the importance of leading by example. Chief Medical Officer Professor Chris Whitty’s reference this week to the work he would himself be doing this Christmas in hospitals, as he did last year, was both authentic and inspiring. For more, read this post on effective communicating during the pandemic by my Grayling colleagues in New York.

Conclusion

The healthcare sector, which has shown so much resilience and adaptability over the last couple of years, must remain flexible to meet fast-evolving challenges. It’s done an incredible job so far, but it’s key that we don’t forget that the world faces many other health challenges outside of COVID-19.

As we have also covered this year, the keys to tackling any public health challenges are to educate, tell human stories and tailor approaches for the local context. These three pillars provide health sector communicators with a strong platform to get their message across.

As we all wish for a more positive 2022, it’s essential we learn from the lessons of what goes before so we can build a stronger, healthier future together.

By Kathryn Ager, Head of Health, Grayling 

Get in touch with Kathryn for more information or if you’d like us to help you find ways to create advantage.

At the end of last summer, shortly after the first Covid wave hit the UK, I wrote a blog reflecting on ways in which the pandemic had changed our view of virtual healthcare. This was seemingly a trend which, like many others last year, had accelerated on the back of Covid. At the time I questioned to what extent the public was ready to engage with the majority of their healthcare virtually.

My piece was informed by some research Grayling carried out into when and how people were accessing treatment, what they were happy to do remotely and when they preferred to speak to someone face to face. I also touched on the opportunities technology presents, and the barriers to specific demographic groups, and reflected on the multiple, and frequently controversial, attempts over more than a decade to bring in a simple national system for sharing health data.

I was reminded of the topic again recently when NHSX, the Government body charged with driving the digital transformation of care, published its draft strategy: ‘Data saves lives: reshaping health and social care with data.’ I wondered whether attitudes to health have shifted over the past 18 months and if there has never been a better time to introduce what NHSX describes as ‘supporting the NHS in creating a modernised system fit for the 21st century which puts patients and staff in pole position’.

Under the proposals, patients will be able to access test results, repeat prescriptions and care plans from across all parts of the health system through patient apps, such as the NHS App. It’s claimed that improving data collection and the way NHS systems work together will mean staff spend less time looking for information they need and more time on patient care. The then UK Health and Social Care Secretary Matt Hancock went further, declaring that ‘data saves lives’.

And there’s little doubt that after the year we have had the public is likely to be far more receptive to this message. From making our vaccination bookings to taking part in research programmes like the Zoe Covid Symptom Study, we have all been happy to share data not just for our own individual benefit, but for the wider good.

However, services such as those provided by the NHS App only work if, as David Aaronovitch recently noted in The Times, there is trust between the patient and the collector of the data.  He points out that this was achieved during the pandemic by adopting a ‘trusted research environments’ model’. This essentially means that data stays where it is, rather like a library reading room, rather than being available for loan.

On this basis, we now have a unique opportunity ahead of us. The public have clearly demonstrated that when they are confident their data is being used responsibly and safely, and where they see a benefit to themselves and others, they are happy to share their data.  The Government needs to build on this increased public engagement to put in place a national system that patients and clinicians alike support and which will benefit us at every stage of life and health. It’s been a tough nut to crack, and taken many years of trying, but with a fair wind, this Government might just do it. Now to tackle social care…

By Kathryn Ager, Head of Health, Grayling

Over the past year health has taken centre stage in our lives. Now, as we begin to emerge from the pandemic, it is clear that our approach to, and attitude towards, individual and collective health will have altered as a result of COVID-19. At Grayling we are positive about the opportunities that lie ahead and can’t wait to help brands and organisations navigate this new landscape.

So, what will be important in the next few months and beyond, what are the key health issues that will be facing society, organisations, and individuals? We have done the groundwork and identified seven key areas we think will be important in the post pandemic landscape:

Hybrid working

It’s here to stay. Offices are great places to connect but a degree of home working will remain. Prior to the pandemic only five per cent of people worked from home but now 40 per cent of employers anticipate regular home working. With less time spent commuting and more time in their local community what sort of new routines will people create for themselves? Local sports, physical activity and wellness could all flourish.

Remembering other diseases

Unfortunately, cancer, heart disease and other chronic conditions haven’t gone away, but they have received far less attention from media, health organisations and many businesses since the start of the pandemic. We can expect to see the consequences of this widely discussed in the media, alongside a big push to renew fundraising for these causes – competition for attention will be even greater than pre-COVID, reinforcing the need for effective communications strategies.

Medical intersectionality

COVID highlighted the extent to which health is influenced by other factors; the disproportionate death toll from COVID amongst patients with pre-existing medical conditions, the poor and those coming from minority ethnic backgrounds, has raised awareness of the inequalities that exists in healthcare. Organisations which acknowledge and move to help address these factors will be key.

Doubling down on mental health

Don’t expect conversations around mental health to diminish – the pandemic brought widespread challenges for everyone’s mental health with children and young people arguably suffering the most. Addressing this will no doubt be uppermost in the minds of politicians of all persuasions.

National fitness goals

With links between obesity and risk of serious illness from COVID-19 firmly established, expect to see further government drives to curb obesity. At the same time, the debate over how best to consider the relationship between weight and health remains complicated – consumers are increasingly demanding a more nuanced appreciation of the question, beyond the traditional ‘fat = bad’ narrative, and are becoming increasingly responsive to brands and organisations which address these questions head-on.

A focus on the natural world

Spending days inside with nowhere to go has led to a collective appreciation for the natural environment. In lockdown cities emptied and people flocked to the countryside. The impact of the pandemic combined with concerns about climate change and global warming have led to demands for a ‘greener’ way of life. Will we see these trends adopted by governments and communities in ways that are truly sustainable?

Lifestyle + Health = Profit

Increasing numbers of consumer-facing brands are set to launch in the coming year with a mix of lifestyle and healthcare brand positioning. There is an opportunity for smart brand-building in this area that captures the increasingly health-focused outlook we have across all aspects of our lives and acknowledges the potential role that consumer products can plan in delivering positive outcomes outside simple product functionality.

Whatever the challenge, Grayling is an agency that’s committed to building, growing, sustaining and repairing health and health-related brands and organisations worldwide. Whether it’s supporting clients to navigate a challenging regulatory environment or creating award-winning campaigns that drive awareness, provoke thought or change behaviours, the work we do, inspired by our clients, creates advantage.

Get in touch for more information or if you’d like us to help you find ways to create advantage.

Kathryn Ager is Head of Health, Grayling UK

Contact: Kathryn.Ager@grayling.com

As the world continues to tackle the Covid-19 pandemic, Grayling launched a global report exploring how people across the world perceive the role and reputation of the pharmaceutical industry. Kathryn Ager, Head of Health at Grayling, looks at the findings and what they mean for the sector.

How is public awareness of – and trust in – big pharma companies changing as the pandemic evolves? How is the relationship between pharmaceutical companies and governments changing and what does this mean for the future of the industry? How can pharmaceutical companies improve their communication with stakeholders in the medical industry, government and the public at large?

Grayling wanted to explore these questions, so we surveyed the general public in the UK, US, France, Germany, Russia and China to investigate how their attitudes towards pharma have evolved*. We also spoke to 14 senior decision-makers within the health sector including representatives from the industry, patient groups and policy makers to gauge their views. The results of our research can be found in our latest report, ‘Emerging from Covid-19: What Next for the Pharmaceutical Industry?’ but I’d like to highlight a few standouts.

The perception of pharma has improved during the pandemic 

We observe that the public perception of pharma companies has largely been enhanced during the pandemic, especially in countries where Covid vaccine rollouts have been most successful.

Nearly two-thirds (63%) say that the pharmaceutical industry has a positive impact on society. Nearly half (49%) say they view the pharmaceutical industry more positively than before the pandemic. This was particularly evident in markets such as China, where nearly nine in ten (89%) people felt more positive towards the industry. Meanwhile, just a third (33%) of French people reported the same.

Just 14% worldwide say they feel the pharma sector has a negative impact on society. Men are narrowly more positive towards pharma overall than women.

Speaking to our expert interviewees, the consensus was largely that the perception of pharma – together with an understanding of what it does and how it works – had improved. The challenge is how to make this goodwill last.

In terms of reputation for individual pharma brands, the picture is mixed 

Has the public heard of the leading Covid vaccine manufacturers and, if so, what do they think about them? One in five (21%) people say they have heard of AstraZeneca because of the pandemic, 15% say Pfizer and more than one in ten say they now know Johnson & Johnson (11%) and Sanofi (10%).

Pfizer enjoys a healthy approval rating (60% positive) among those who have heard of the brand.  Perhaps not unexpectedly AstraZeneca is experiencing more negative perceptions, possibly due to its legal battles with the EU, question marks over the accuracy of its data in the US and reported links to rare blood clots.

More than a third (36%) of people said what they heard about AstraZeneca was negative, compared to Johnson & Johnson (21%) and Sanofi (15%). Negativity towards AstraZeneca was highest in France (46%) and Germany (42%) but lowest in the US (nine percent).

‘Vaccine nationalism’ is strong, but it varies wildly from country to country 

There’s no doubt that Covid-19, and therefore the vaccines associated with it, have become politicised. Important national and local elections in the US, Israel, Netherlands, Spain and UK have been influenced by governments’ handling of the crisis.

Two of our interviewees, including a former UK politician, say that ‘vaccine nationalism’ is inevitable as countries look to protect their populations.

Our research finds that people in the UK were far less attached to the idea that a vaccine had to be produced in their country to be trustworthy than other countries. Just under half (49%) said it was important that a vaccine was developed in their country for them to trust it, compared to China (88%), Germany (68%) and France (65%).

Pharma has an opportunity to build on the goodwill, but must demonstrate ‘purpose’ 

The pandemic has accelerated progress towards more compassionate business models, where organisations are finding a purpose beyond purely prioritising profits. This ‘New Collectivism’ embeds greater environmental, social and governance (ESG) responsibility into company culture.

This quest for a ‘higher purpose’ for pharma is reflected in the findings of our global survey. More than half (55%) said they would be more likely to trust a Covid-19 vaccine if the manufacturer had promised not to seek to make a profit from it. Women (58%) are more likely than men (52%) to trust a not-for-profit vaccine.

Changing the conversation around pharma 

While pharmaceutical companies that produced vaccines for Covid-19 have often taken centre stage over the past year, our report clearly shows there is opportunity for the entire industry to get behind this increased understanding and appreciation and use it as a force for good.   The healthcare experts we interviewed agreed that the industry now has a platform that it didn’t have prior to the pandemic. This provides a golden opportunity to discuss its research and development (R&D), highlight its solutions to wider health issues, and address traditional questions around pharma, such as access and pricing.  And those that can do this best will no doubt prosper now and in the months and years ahead.

Please click here to download your copy of our report – Emerging from Covid-19: What next for the pharmaceutical industry? 

And if your healthcare organisation needs expert communications counsel, please contact me. 

*Grayling commissioned Opinium Research to survey 3,000 members of the public in the UK, US, France, Germany, Russia and China.

Throughout history, global movements to tackle the world’s oldest and deadliest diseases have struggled to cut through individual country apathy. So, it may have been a surprise to many when a new disease arrived that immediately grabbed the attention of every national leader around the world.

To add insult to injury, not only has COVID-19 ravaged countries’ health systems, it has also potentially jeopardised the fight against many global health issues – from malaria to cancer – threatening years of hard-fought progress.

Yet now, perhaps for the first time in living memory, global health has become, well, a truly global issue. Disease doesn’t respect borders and good population health affects us all, regardless of where we live in the world. With the arrival of COVID-19, countries big and small have recognised the crucial need for global health infrastructure and the value of organisations like the WHO to protect life as we know it. As Bill and Melinda Gates put it, 2020 was “the year global health went local”. The risks that disease and poor health pose to the global economy and our futures is clearer than ever – and governments are taking note.

Just last week, the U.K. government announced the formation of a new global health directorate in the Foreign and Commonwealth Development Office.  According to The Telegraph, while priorities for the newly formed unit include the COVID-19 pandemic and supporting the World Health Organization, the team will also look at broader issues including maternal mortality, nutrition, sanitation and reproductive health. For Britain at least, global health presents an opportunity to showcase its global health legacy and establish the post-Brexit promise of a ‘Global Britain’.

We have also seen a number of the world’s richest countries come together to provide vaccines to low-income countries. Gavi’s COVAX programme has so far raised $6bn in donations, with countries such as France and Norway making commitments to donate surplus vaccines to the project. In yesterday’s budget, the U.K. also committed to contribute the majority of future surplus COVID-19 vaccines, in addition to its £548 million funding for the scheme.

In 2021, as countries begin to develop routes out of the pandemic, an opportunity is emerging to strengthen global health infrastructure and keep these issues front and centre for policy makers. There may never be a better time for global health communities to make their case.

While France has recently announced its intention to increase aid contributions, the U.K. has made headlines over plans to cut foreign aid budgets from 0.7% of gross national income to 0.5% in response to the pandemic. During this uncertain period, cutting global health funding could prove short sighted, and result in an even greater health bill in future.

Health systems, NGOs and aid agencies around the world must capitalise on this unique opportunity to raise the profile of global health and communicate its importance. As countries rethink their budgets, priorities and values, it’s crucial the role of global health security and its return on investment is part of the conversation.

For those organisations which have weathered the COVID-19 storm, aligning their business to global health during the post-pandemic era is also a no-brainer. CSR initiatives such as the RED campaign to fight HIV/AIDS provide examples of how consumer brands can effectively take a stand on global health issues.

The COVID-19 pandemic was a disaster waiting to happen, and we need to be prepared for further pandemics in the future. In 2021, I hope the global health community, policymakers and the private sector can seize the moment, to effectively leverage what has been a tragic event for so many to improve health for all.

The public is flirting with virtual healthcare – what will it take to convince them? Grayling’s Head of Health, Kathryn Ager, explores the latest developments.

While virtual health consultations existed well before COVID-19, like many other technologies that minimise the need for face to face interaction, their usage has soared over the past six months.

The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Matt Hancock, is a big fan.  At the end of July he declared that all GP consultations should be ‘remote by default, unless a patient needs to be seen in person’.  And there’s no doubt remote consultations provide many patient benefits such as convenience and efficiency, especially when it comes to routine appointments.

However, it seems there is still some way to go until the public fully embraces this new way of accessing healthcare.  Just recently the Daily Mail reported that almost two thirds (65%) of people were either ‘very concerned’ or ‘quite concerned’ that telephone or video consultations were not as thorough as face to face appointments and might risk missing serious conditions.

Our own survey carried out this summer echoed that sentiment.  We found that while more than a third (39%) of people were happy to access healthcare remotely for common conditions, this fell to just 12% for unusual signs and symptoms, such as a suspicious lump.

This pattern was repeated when it came to meeting hospital consultants (62% preferring face to face), getting blood test results (61%) and accessing physical therapies, such as speech therapy (53%).  In contrast, people of all ages were generally more comfortable accessing sexual health services or treatment for stress related conditions such as insomnia, remotely.

While technology is less of a barrier than in the past it can still present challenges, particularly for older audiences, who represent the largest patient pool. Our survey found that 17% of people aged over 55 still do not feel confident enough to use remote technologies for their healthcare. And even younger audiences expressed concerns, albeit for different reasons, with just over a fifth (21%) of 16-24s saying they don’t trust apps to keep their data secure.

It’s likely that a hybrid model combining virtual with face to face will be the new normal.  But will more need to be done to persuade people to place their trust in technology platforms which are evolving all the time?  Previous Governments have shied away from pushing the technology and health agenda too hard.  Several large-scale IT projects have been fraught with controversy and fatally damaged by data privacy campaigners.

However, with the advent of COVID-19 times have changed.  In its first weekend of operation more than 10m people downloaded the new NHS Track and Trace app, evidence perhaps of a fundamental shift in attitudes.  Only time will tell if COVID-19 has changed our view of technology and health for good.  But if we do still need some final reassurance, there might never be a better time for a campaign that excites people about the potential and provides confidence through real life experiences to nudge people over the line.

The furore caused by the Royal College of GPs and its labelling of COVID-19 as ‘a lifestyle disease’, reported in the Times yesterday, raises some interesting questions. Kathryn Ager, Grayling’s Head of Health, shares her thoughts.

So far, the evidence indicates that if you have diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease or certain cancers and you contract COVID-19, your chance of a worse outcome is increased. Evidence also shows that most, albeit not all, of these conditions are in some way linked to lifestyle, many linked directly to being overweight or obese. The European Centre for Disease Prevention & Control found that almost three quarters of critically ill patients in Italy, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the Netherlands were obese. In the UK, which already ranks among the highest in the world for obesity rates, being obese doubles your risk of death from COVID-19.

The exact reasons for this are unknown. It is thought that obesity may weaken the immune system; the World Obesity Federation has also suggested that obese patients are more difficult to intubate and put through diagnostic imaging (as there are weight limits on imaging machines). They are also more difficult to position and transport and health systems are not generally well set up to manage patients with obesity.

So should obesity now be considered an underlying health condition? I am certainly no doctor, but it seems to me that the evidence points to that, in relation to COVID-19. And, more importantly, it seems the public might be starting to think the same. This is hardly surprising when, for the first time, instead of simply reading about the potential dangers of obesity, people witnessed its impact on friends and loved ones during COVID-19, with many people often only in their 50s and 60s requiring hospital treatment after contracting the virus.

There was no higher profile example of this than the Prime Minister himself. At the age of 55, 5’9” and estimated to be around 17 stone, but otherwise fit and well, he turned out to be a perfect candidate for COVID-19. Post hospitalisation, it seems the PM realised this too, concluding his excess weight had played a major part in his inability to cope with the virus and exhorting others, “Don’t be a fatty in your fifties.” Since then, he has embarked on a strict exercise and healthier eating programme (including early morning PT sessions and press ups) to lose weight.

Of course, there are many other factors at play when it comes to better understanding what causes someone to experience serious complications from COVID-19. Obesity is just one of many contributing factors that researchers are looking at right now to help improve treatment in future. But given what we already know, tackling obesity will be key.

So what can corporates do to harness this changing public mood? Whether you’re a food manufacturer, town planner or leisure chain, we all have a part to play in helping address this societal challenge. Given successive Governments have found this a tough nut to crack, no doubt the current administration will welcome with open arms any thoughts that industry brings to the table over the coming months.

Perhaps for the first time in many years, there is public appetite to make tangible changes that will have a practical impact on reducing obesity levels, or at least ‘flattening the curve’. As we emerge from lockdown, which for many people has been a period of enforced physical activity and increased calorie consumption, this may be the best chance to finally press the reset button and create a healthier and happier society for all.