Illustrative engagement. A representative scenario showing how we approach this kind of work in healthcare. It does not describe a specific client; outcomes are described qualitatively.
Industry overview
What is shaping healthcare
Hospitals, clinics, diagnostics and health-tech companies need evidence from patients and professionals, gathered with verified respondents and strict privacy.
- Patients compare providers online
- Diagnostics and telemedicine are growing
- HCP opinion shapes referrals
Client background
A pharmaceutical company, working in India. This is an illustrative engagement: a representative scenario showing how we approach this kind of work, not a named client project.
- Organisation
- A pharmaceutical company
- Sector
- Healthcare
- Team engaged
- Market Research
- Services
- Healthcare panel, Quantitative research, Qualitative research
Client challenge
The company's new therapy was clinically strong but adoption was slow.
Research objectives
- Answer the core question: what drives specialists' treatment choices.
- Understand the views, needs and behaviour of specialists.
- Measure how widespread each pattern is, and explain the reasons behind it.
- Give the client evidence it can act on within 6 weeks.
Target audience
The work focused on 300 specialists.
- specialists300
Audiences we typically reach in healthcare
Patients and caregiversDoctors and specialistsNurses and staffDiagnostics customersHealth-tech users
Geographic coverage
Coverage: India. Market: India.
- India
Research methodology
A mixed-method design: structured research measured how widespread each pattern was, and qualitative conversations explained why.
- 1Brief
- 2Physician interviews
- 3Online survey
- 4Insight
We interviewed and surveyed verified specialists about treatment decisions, evidence needs and patient affordability.
Healthcare panelQuantitative researchQualitative research
Sampling strategy
- specialists
- 300
- Healthcare professionals and patients were screened on specialty, setting or condition, and professionals were verified before taking part.
- Online respondents were drawn from verified panel members who matched the screening criteria, with quotas on key profile attributes.
- Qualitative participants were recruited purposively to cover the full range of experiences that mattered, rather than for statistical representation.
Data collection
- interviews
- 20
- The online survey was mobile-friendly and offered in respondents' languages.
- Interviews and discussions were led by experienced moderators using a guide agreed with the client.
Data quality & validation
- Digital fingerprinting and duplicate checks
- Attention, speed and straight-lining checks
- Review of open-ended answers
- Recordings and transcripts for every session
- Re-screening of qualitative recruits
- Verification of healthcare professionals
- Logic and range checks on the final data
- Work carried out under our ISO 20252 quality procedures
Data analysis
- Cross-tabulation by key groups and locations
- Significance testing on the differences that mattered
- Thematic coding of interviews and discussions
- Journey and decision mapping
Key findings
- Specialists wanted local clinical data and patient support programmes.
Doctors adopt what they can explain to patients.
Recommendations
- Build on the core insight: doctors adopt what they can explain to patients.
- Focus effort where the evidence was strongest: specialists wanted local clinical data and patient support programmes.
- Re-measure after the changes to confirm the effect.
Business impact
- The company prioritised both.
What changed in the business as a result of the work. Impact is described qualitatively.
Deliverables & next steps
- Insight report and management presentation
- Cleaned data file and data tables
- Interview summaries and key verbatims
- Repeat the measure after changes are in place to track progress.
- A natural follow-on question: how do patients rate their experience?