Edelman’s Dave Pinnington says it’s hard for consumers to find proper medical advice online

The pharmaceutical industry has always been in a difficult position in the online world. Legally restricted from promoting directly to the general public, while consumers can find information and conversation at the click of the mouse, it places digital at the centre of a tricky debate. Brand and communications professionals increasingly regard social as the most effective and preferred channel for public engagement, but for a particularly risk-averse industry, it is just one step too far for many companies.

Facebook’s recent announcement that it plans to remove the ability to switch off comments has led to an exodus of pharmaceutical pages from the site. Meanwhile, a recent communication slip on a UK pharmaceutical company’s Twitter account has emphasised the risks of online communication to the industry.

In the last 10 years, people’s expectations have changed. The Internet has given us more ability to express ourselves than at any time in human history and democratised information, making it available to anyone in any country with access to a computer or, increasingly, a mobile handset. It has aggregated conversation allowing communities to share opinions, and amplified lone voices allowing individuals to speak on a global stage. Current pharmaceutical regulation means that conversation is virtually non existent; the voice of the pharmaceutical company is often silent and information is limited. This leaves people to negotiate a minefield of misinformation, spam sites and partially accurate patient conversations as they attempt to track down trustworthy and reliable websites.

The European Commission’s latest press release on 10 October called Empowering the Patient falls significantly short of empowerment. It allows pharmaceutical companies to provide “only certain information” through “limited channels of communication”, but in a world where people expect to find information and discussion instantly, only full and open information is acceptable to the public.

According to the Edelman Health Barometer 2011, 77 per cent of the public use the Internet to search for health information. A study by Google showed that 79 per cent of patients research their conditions online before discussing them with their physicians and following their consultation 70 per cent search the Web afterwards to learn more.

If according to the European Commission “online information on medicines must be accurate and reliable”, restricting pharmaceutical company’s ability to communicate and converse with the public is doing precisely the opposite. A Google survey found 52 per cent of people self diagnose after searching for health information online.

So, what impact could the Internet have on people’s health? Without question there are some wonderful websites with accurate and valuable information, but to the untrained eye is it always obvious to the public which sites are reliable and which are not?  So who does this consumer regulation actually benefit?  I would argue not patients or pharmaceutical companies. Is “empowering the patient” through lack of online engagement a means of stopping people asking for new and potentially more expensive treatments? My definition of empowerment is having access to all the information to enable informed dialogue and decision-making.

Where does this leave the pharmaceutical industry and social media? I believe it should embrace social media where possible, utilising Social Content Optimisation (SCO) and social media marketing, to help people find reliable information. If it feels the risk of engaging in social media and the public is too high, then the bare minimum should be to monitor and listen to online discussion. The world has changed, it’s more social than ever before and it’s about time that pharmaceutical companies were given the liberty to join the conversation.