Medical writers from across Europe gathered in Munich at the 42nd European Medical Writers Association Conference (EMWA, 10–14 May 2016) to network, share best practice and look to the future. There was a lively poster session, where Chris Winchester and Noëlle O’Regan of Oxford PharmaGenesis presented a poster co-authored with Conference Director Slávka Baróniková and others on the factors that influence medical writers’ and publications managers’ preferences for specific journals. The central event of the conference was the symposium day, with the theme ‘Scientific and Medical Communication Today’, which was attended by approximately 200 delegates. This symposium focused on the ever-changing field of medical communications and the importance of medical writers as medical communicators, and included a presentation by Chris Winchester of Oxford PharmaGenesis, who explained the changing role of the medical communications agency.
Co-chairs Slávka Baróniková and Andrea Rossi introduced the morning session, ‘How to communicate science effectively’. This session addressed different ways of communicating science by combining new technology and traditional storytelling techniques. Nico Pitrelli (Scuola Internazionale Superiore di Studi Avanzati, Italy) discussed the roles and practices of science communicators in an evolving media ecosystem. Nico explained that the traditional authority of science communicators is being broken down because individuals are questioning which evidence to trust in an era of information overload. He emphasized the need to build and maintain trust between those who generate and communicate data and those who base their healthcare-related decisions on these data. Chris Colaço (Initiate Training & Development, Switzerland) then explained how communications create a brand, the importance of a brand promise and what this means for the reputation of a medical writer. Jan Geissler (European Patients’ Academy on Therapeutic Innovation, Germany) described how to communicate scientific information to patients, caregivers and patient advocates. Jan revisited the topic of trust introduced by Nico, explaining that patient consent forms should clearly communicate essential medical information so that patients can make informed healthcare-related decisions. Patient consent forms should be put in place to protect the interests of the patient, rather than those of other parties involved, and the structure and language of these forms should reflect this. Currently, patient consent forms are often not user friendly. They could, however, be made clearer and more concise by using flow charts, diagrams and simple language.
Fabienne Huebener (inword.de, Germany) showed how to make science accessible using storytelling techniques. Rather than presenting a logical chain of facts, an effective story is communicated by describing a situation, introducing a complication and then presenting a solution. At the end of the morning session, Laurence Auffret (Cinetique Translations, UK) presented on the dos and don’ts of medical translation. She explained that, when a manuscript is being developed for translation, translators should be involved from the very beginning of development, to help to structure the flow and language in a way that will make the translated versions more accurate and consistent. The morning session concluded with a panel discussion involving all five speakers.
The afternoon session, ‘How scientific communication works’, aimed to address the roles and contributions of the different parties involved in science communications, including regulators, publishers and medical communications agencies. The session began with an overview by Juan Garcia Burgos (European Medicines Agency [EMA], UK) of the perspective of the EMA on how to communicate medical information. Hartwig Buettner (Eli Lilly, Germany) described industry-driven research and communications for healthcare professionals and the non-medical audience. Chris Winchester then expanded on the key role that medical communications agencies fulfil in helping to communicate science. In the modern age, when methods of communications are constantly changing, agencies need to be flexible, understand the needs of the client, plan carefully and deliver high quality materials. Andrea Bucceri (Dove Press, UK) reviewed the importance of new technologies such as blogs and podcasts and considered how publishing services are evolving to keep up with how readers expect to access information.
Jan Seal-Roberts (Adis/Springer Healthcare, UK) presented her vision of the scientific article of the future. Jan predicted that, 20 years from now, articles will consist of raw data and graphical options to present that data, and will be accompanied by secondary publications that comment on and interpret the data. Martin Delahunty (Springer Nature, UK) explained the value of medical writing support in communicating information to wide audiences. Open access publications should be written with a wide range of audiences in mind. Considering that clinical study reports (CSRs) for new drugs and indications approved by the EMA will be made freely available from September 2016, the afternoon concluded with a panel discussion of the implications of such open availability (see http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/?curl=pages/special_topics/general/general_content_000555.jsp for more information). The discussion highlighted the need for authors to ensure that journal and other articles accurately reflect the content of their CSRs. Authors may be asked to justify differences in presentation and interpretation between their articles and the CSRs.
Overall, the conference addressed a broad range of topics and brought together cross-industry speakers, panellists and regulators with ample opportunity for lively debate.
