S17: Literature Review on Medical Science Liaison Key Performance Indicators and Best Practices
Poster Presenter
Yunjung Hilary Shin
Student
Rutgers University United States
Objectives
This study assesses medical science liaison (MSL) key performance indicators (KPI) from the perspective of the MSL, MSL manager/medical affairs leadership, and key opinion leaders (KOLs). This study aims to identify areas of improvement and best practices in current MSL metric evaluation.
Method
A literature search was done to collect and analyze data from published surveys sent out to MSLs, MSL managers/medical affairs leadership, and KOLs across the globe. Published surveys were assessed for important MSL competencies and current outcome measures used to evaluate MSL performance.
Results
Five published surveys from 2007 to 2020 and one review article were identified in the public domain literature search. The surveys described metrics assessing MSL value that are used by medical affairs leadership and the values that KOLs appreciate in MSLs.
MSLs are most commonly evaluated by the following metrics: maintained KOL relationships, number of KOL interactions, KOL feedback surveys, days spent in the field, duration of KOL interaction, quality of KOL relationships, support of advisory board activities, new KOL relationships, level of involvement in research, number of internal and external scientific presentations, and number of publications facilitated. It was found that the best way to gauge MSL impact on KOLs is to conduct frequent KOL feedback surveys.
One survey uncovered that MSL managers found excellent communication to be the most important factor in the success of the MSL, yet it also had the greatest potential for improvement. Expertise in the disease area is required, however, what differentiates successful MSLs are their interpersonal and communication skills. Communication skills such as diverse network building, influence and persuasion, and emotional intelligence were found to be at the core of having excellent communication according to MSL managers.
There are several factors that influence KOL relationships with MSLs. One survey found that factors influencing KOL relationships sequential in significance included quality of scientific support and materials, company reputation, brand recognition, therapeutic area, overall competitive landscape, availability of research grants, and territory size. Another survey uncovered that what KOLs found to be extremely important in improving the MSL-KOL relationship is support for starting programs (e.g., investigator-initiated clinical trials (IIT), speaker program opportunities) as well as expert medical knowledge.
Conclusion
According to our literature review, the metrics that MSLs are measured by are not perfectly aligned with the skills that make MSLs successful at their roles. Communication skills, the competency designated by MSL managers as the most important for MSL success, are difficult to capture in quantitative metrics. Therefore, although measuring MSL performance by quantitative metrics may be the most objective route, it is not necessarily the most accurate. For example, measuring MSL metrics by the number of submitted IIT proposals can lead to pressure for MSLs to reach a certain quota and potentially result in seeding research ideas into KOLs for IITs. Another example of how using quantitative metrics can negatively impact KOL relationships is by using “reach and frequency” metrics. “Reach and frequency” metrics may be useful for measuring short-term outcomes from field sales representatives, but it is not ideal for MSLs who need to maintain long-term relationships with KOLs. As a result of this method, MSLs may unnecessarily increase the frequency in calls to KOLs which reduces quality in the interactions. KOL feedback surveys can capture areas for MSL improvement and their strengths compared to competitors. KOL feedback surveys and other qualitative metrics are the most accurate measures of MSL performance.
Identifying and bridging disconnect between medical affairs leadership and MSLs is essential for maintaining strong relationships with KOLs. For example, an MSL can work with a KOL to develop a IIT proposal without knowing the IIT is no longer aligned with corporate strategy. This can result in wasted time, efforts, damage to the company image, and a strained relationship with the KOL. Therefore, there needs to be bidirectional communication between MSLs and corporate in regard to strategy direction, new initiatives, and KOL activities.
Further research is needed to better quantify best practices for MSLs that can have an impact on training and overall outcomes.
