{"id":67582,"date":"2022-11-15T02:53:44","date_gmt":"2022-11-15T01:53:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.veeva.com\/eu\/?post_type=resources&p=67582"},"modified":"2026-01-27T15:45:31","modified_gmt":"2026-01-27T14:45:31","slug":"veeva-pulse-field-trends-report-3q22","status":"publish","type":"resources","link":"https:\/\/www.veeva.com\/eu\/resources\/veeva-pulse-field-trends-report-3q22\/","title":{"rendered":"³Ô¹Ï±¬ÁÏ Pulse Field Trends Report Q3 2022"},"content":{"rendered":"

NOVEMBER 2022<\/p>\n

HCP Access Rebounds to 60%, But Not for Everyone<\/h2>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\nSixty percent. That\u2019s the average percentage of
\naccessible healthcare professionals (HCPs) in
\nthe U.S. across top specialties. Does that number
\nsurprise you?\n<\/p>\n

\nInformed by anecdotal and limited data, there\u2019s a
\ncommon belief that HCP access is much lower and
\nhasn\u2019t returned to pre-pandemic levels.\n<\/p>\n

\nNow with ³Ô¹Ï±¬ÁÏ Pulse\u2014the largest-ever analysis of 600 million annual HCP-rep interactions globally
\nacross more than 80% of the industry\u2014we have the full picture: HCP access is back, and more virtual.
\nHowever, it\u2019s more selective than ever. And with the rapidly changing channel mix, field effectiveness also
\nvaries even more widely among companies.\n<\/p>\n

\nAlthough access is not the same for everyone, there are clear steps companies can take to be more
\nsuccessful. Field teams must understand which HCPs are genuinely accessible, and which HCPs are
\nselectively engaging with other companies. And, they must allocate their valuable\u2014yet limited\u2014field
\nresources accordingly, including rethinking targeting and channel mix to achieve the right reach.\n<\/p>\n

\nRead on for our in-depth analysis of HCP access and recommended actions, and reach out to ³Ô¹Ï±¬ÁÏ Business
\nConsulting<\/a> to find out how we can help you use this industry data to help measure your access relative to the
\nindustry, improve your field execution, and achieve our shared vision for commercial excellence.\n<\/p>\n

\nThank you,
\n\"\"
\nDan Rizzo
\nVice President, Business Consulting, ³Ô¹Ï±¬ÁÏ\n<\/p>\n

\n

PULSE<\/span>INSIGHT<\/h3>\n

Access is back and includes video for 50% of accessible HCPs<\/h2>\n


\nDefining HCP access<\/strong>
\nIn this report, HCP access
\nis defined as an HCP\u2019s
\nwillingness to meet with reps,
\neither in-person or via video.<\/em>
\n<\/at-a-glance><\/p>\n

\nHistorically, HCP access has largely been measured by in-person meetings.
\nBut, even before the pandemic pushed HCP access to an all-time low of
\nroughly 20%, historical estimates have shown a significant decline for more
\nthan a decade. Now, HCP access is back\u2014and perhaps even better than
\nsome pre-pandemic estimates\u2014but in a different way.\n<\/p>\n

\n³Ô¹Ï±¬ÁÏ Pulse data show that HCP access has rebounded to 60% across specialties. A closer look reveals
\nthat this engagement is increasingly virtual: of those accessible HCPs, more than 50% meet with reps via a
\nhybrid mix of in-person and video channels.\n<\/p>\n

Figure 1 I <\/span>HCP Access Trends<\/h3>\n

\"\"
\n\"\"<\/p>\n

\nThere is also significant variation in access and channel usage by specialty (Figure 2). The specialties with
\nthe lowest access are psychiatry, internal medicine, and neurology. In contrast, the highest access levels are
\nin immunology, diabetes, and dermatology. Interestingly, 78% of accessible oncologists engage via a mix of
\nin-person and video vs. in-person alone, a wider gap than any other specialty.\n<\/p>\n

\nThis data shows that in-person meetings are no longer the sole indicator of HCP access. Investments
\nmade in omnichannel capabilities like video continue to yield results and can be a powerful differentiator in
\ncombination with in-person tactics.\n<\/p>\n

Figure 2 I <\/span>U.S. HCP Access by Specialty and Channel<\/h3>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

KEY<\/span>TAKEAWAY<\/h3>\n

\nReevaluate how you measure HCP access beyond your own field organization and ensure you\u2019re using video
\nto help expand your access.\n<\/p>\n

\n

PULSE<\/span>INSIGHT<\/h3>\n

Video expands access and improves promotional response<\/h2>\n

<\/p>\n

3x<\/h2>\n

promotional response
\nfrom video when added
\nbetween in-person.<\/em>
\n<\/at-a-glance><\/p>\n

\nCompanies with the highest level of access to HCPs leverage video
\nas an additive channel, according to key findings from the previous
\n³Ô¹Ï±¬ÁÏ Pulse Field Trends Report<\/a>. In addition, the report showed
\nvideo has a three times greater promotional response when added
\nbetween in-person meetings.\n<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

2.5x<\/h2>\n

increase in oncologist
\nmeetings with combined
\nin-person and video<\/em>
\n<\/at-a-glance><\/p>\n

\nInterestingly, video is also connected to increased in-person meeting
\nfrequency. For example, oncologists who meet with reps in-person
\nonly average 4.5 meetings per month, while oncologists who engage
\nvia a mix of in-person and video average 11 meetings per month,
\nincluding double the amount of in-person touch points (Figure 3).\n<\/p>\n

Figure 3 I <\/span>In-Person and Video Meetings vs. In-Person Meetings Alone in Oncology<\/h3>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

KEY<\/span>TAKEAWAY<\/h3>\n

\nEducate your field on the impact video can have on accelerating sales, build it into your call plans, and use
\nvideo as an additive channel to in-person.\n<\/p>\n

\n

PULSE<\/span>INSIGHT<\/h3>\n

Most accessible HCPs only meet with select companies<\/h2>\n

\nAlthough access is better than most companies think, there\u2019s a catch: access is not the same for everybody.
\nFifty percent of accessible HCPs are highly selective and limit their access to three or fewer biopharmas
\n(Figure 4), and that access can vary greatly by specialty.\n<\/p>\n

Figure 4 I <\/span>Not All Access is Created Equal<\/h3>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\nUrology, psychiatry, internal medicine, and oncology are the most selective specialties. For example, most
\noncologists meet with three or fewer companies, and 30% of psychiatrists limit access to just one company
\n(Figure 5). On the other hand, immunology, diabetes, and dermatology are the least selective. More than 70%
\nof immunologists are accessible to four or more companies.\n<\/p>\n

\nIt is imperative for field teams to understand the true nature of target HCP access. Are they open to
\neveryone, no one, or just a select few companies?\n<\/p>\n

Figure 5 I <\/span>U.S. HCP Selectivity, 30-Day Average<\/h3>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

KEY<\/span>TAKEAWAY<\/h3>\n

\nUnderstand if target HCPs are truly inaccessible vs. limiting their access to a select few.\n<\/p>\n

\n

PULSE<\/span>INSIGHT<\/h3>\n

Some companies are more effective\u2014and efficient\u2014at reaching HCPs<\/h2>\n


\nDefining HCP reach<\/strong>
\n
\nIn this report, HCP reach is
\ndefined as a company\u2019s ability
\nto engage an accessible HCP
\neither in-person or via video.<\/em>
\n<\/at-a-glance><\/p>\n

\nIn addition to disparities in access, wide gaps in HCP reach exist
\nbetween companies as well. Companies with the strongest reach have
\non average three times the reach of their peers (Figure 6a) and, in some
\nareas, the differences are even more drastic. For example, in diabetes,
\nthe company with the highest reach engages 63% of total HCPs vs.
\nthe weighted average of 11%. That means there\u2019s a wide gap between
\nleading companies and the rest of the pack.\n<\/p>\n

\nThe data also demonstrates that some field forces are more efficient than others. For example, in the
\noncology space (Figure 6b), six companies with approximately the same reach had significantly different
\nfield sizes, ranging from more than 700 reps on the high end, to roughly 250 on the low end. This suggests
\nthat the \u2018more boots on the ground\u2019 approach is not the sole solution to improving reach.\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Figure 6a I <\/span>U.S. Access and Reach by Specialty<\/h3>\n

\t\t\"\"\n\t<\/div>\n

\n

Figure 6b I <\/span>Reach vs. Oncology Field Force Size<\/h3>\n

\t\t\"\"\n\t<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

KEY<\/span>TAKEAWAY<\/h3>\n

\nIn addition to evaluating your access relative to your peers, benchmark field productivity to gauge
\nefficiency levels.\n<\/p>\n

\n

PULSE<\/span>INSIGHT<\/h3>\n

Digitally-enabled reps use content, time with HCPs more effectively<\/h2>\n

\nGetting access to the HCP is the first step. But how you use that time with the HCP is equally important. Our
\nlast report demonstrated how promotional success is driven by time with the customer and the effective use
\nof content. Time with the customer through a blend of in-person and video channels signals trust. Content
\nuse signals effective and clear communication. Engagement through all other channels\u2014e.g., email, phone,
\nchat\u2014are secondary support for digitally enabled reps who optimize for facetime with the customer.\n<\/p>\n

line-height: 32px;\">
\n“The last few years have pushed us to reevaluate our field force strategy and find better ways of maintaining successful HCP relationships. ³Ô¹Ï±¬ÁÏ Pulse proves that digitally-enabled reps create a better experience for customers, are more efficient in educating prescribers, and are better connected to our overall brand strategy through cross-channel engagement.<\/em>”
\nKate Greengrove, Head of Commercial Operations, GlaxoSmithKline<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\nBut not all companies are using their reach the same way. In an analysis of oncology, ³Ô¹Ï±¬ÁÏ Pulse and
\n³Ô¹Ï±¬ÁÏ Compass<\/a> data shows that the most commercially successful field teams use their access more
\neffectively than lagging companies, even when normalized for field force size and reach. What is it that
\nmakes these teams more effective?\n<\/p>\n

\nThe data show that these field teams:\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n\"\"\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n
\n\"\"\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n
\n\"\"\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n
\n

³Ô¹Ï±¬ÁÏ Pulse and Compass, April 2022 – September 2022, companies with with similar field force size and reach<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

KEY<\/span>TAKEAWAY<\/h3>\n

\nMaximize field productivity planning, reinforce the importance of content usage, and use video to help
\nincrease meetings between in-person discussions.\n<\/p>\n

\n

Three keys to improving field effectiveness<\/h2>\n

\nAs you use this data to plan your field force strategy and execution, stay focused on these three key
\ntakeaways:\n<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Access is back, but in a different way.<\/strong> HCP access is now averaging 60% driven by in-person
    \nand video. ³Ô¹Ï±¬ÁÏ Pulse data gives the industry a reliable source to understand how HCPs are
    \nengaging across this channel mix.<\/li>\n
  2. Access is more virtual and selective.<\/strong> Determine if target HCPs are truly inaccessible vs.
    \nlimiting their access and compare HCP access to field force reach to reveal efficiency gaps
    \nand broaden channel strategies.<\/li>\n
  3. Field force effectiveness varies greatly by company.<\/strong> Engage HCPs more effectively
    \nvia a mix of in-person and video as well as sharing content more frequently to drive new
    \ntreatment starts.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    \nFor more insights on how to use ³Ô¹Ï±¬ÁÏ Pulse data to benchmark your field effectiveness, reach out to us at
    \nbusinessconsulting@veeva.com<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n

    Global and Regional Views<\/h2>\n

    \nThis section highlights global and regional engagement trends from ³Ô¹Ï±¬ÁÏ Pulse data
    \nbetween April to September 2022. ³Ô¹Ï±¬ÁÏ Pulse data is sourced from ³Ô¹Ï±¬ÁÏ\u2019s aggregated CRM
    \nactivity dataset, inclusive of field engagement stats from all instances of ³Ô¹Ï±¬ÁÏ CRM globally.\n<\/p>\n

    Global trends<\/h2>\n
      \n
    1. \n Total activity across engagement channels decreased during July and August (Figure 7). In-person continues
      \nto be the most widely used channel (Figure 8), at 76% versus 15% email, 5% phone, 3% video, and 1% chat
      \nor text. In-person HCP engagement increased slightly quarter-to-quarter, from 73% to 76%, despite the slight
      \ndecrease in total activity.\n<\/li>\n
    2. \n The proportion of email activity decreased from 18% to 15%, as indicated by a decline in ³Ô¹Ï±¬ÁÏ CRM Approved
      \nEmail volume (Figure 12).\n<\/li>\n
    3. \n This quarter, content usage rates were on the rise. Content usage via ³Ô¹Ï±¬ÁÏ CRM Engage remained
      \nconsistently high at 85%, while content utilization through other video platforms increased by 10% and 5%
      \nvia in-person (Figure 13).\n<\/li>\n
    4. \n Clear differences remain in the level and type of engagement between user types. As expected, sales reps had
      \nthe highest productivity, but key account managers (KAMs) were most active via phone (three calls per user
      \nper week). Despite recording the lowest volume of activity, medical users had the highest proportion of video
      \nchannel activity, with two calls per user per week (Figure 10).\n<\/li>\n
    5. \n Differences also exist when comparing regional channel preferences. Most HCP interactions (91%) in China
      \nwere in person, much greater than in any other major region (Figure 9). The Asia Pacific region had the most
      \nvideo calls (three per user per week) compared to only one per user per week in all other regions.\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Figure 7 I <\/span>Channel Mix Evolution<\/h3>\n

      \"\"<\/p>\n

      Figure 8 I <\/span>Channel Mix<\/h3>\n

      \"\"<\/p>\n

      Global Field Team Activity<\/h3>\n

      Weekly Activity Per User by Engagement Channel\n<\/p>\n

      Figure 9 I <\/span>Activity by Region<\/h3>\n

      \"\"<\/p>\n

      \n
      \n

      Figure 10 I <\/span>Activity by User Type<\/h3>\n

      \t\t\"\"\n\t<\/div>\n

      \n

      Figure 11 I <\/span>Activity by Company Size<\/h3>\n

      \t\t\"\"\n\t<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

      Global Field Team Activity<\/h3>\n

      Weekly Activity Per User by Engagement Channel\n<\/p>\n

      Figure 12 I <\/span>Approved Email Volume<\/h3>\n

      \"\"<\/p>\n

      Figure 13 I <\/span>Content Usage by Channel<\/h3>\n

      \"\"<\/p>\n

      Figure 14 I <\/span>Engage Meeting Duration<\/h3>\n

      \"\"<\/p>\n

      U.S. market trends<\/h2>\n
        \n
      1. The U.S. remained the most unchanged region since the last report, with a consistent channel mix
        \n(Figure 16).<\/li>\n
      2. The proportion of digital interactions (email, phone, and video engagement) remained consistent since last
        \nquarter at 29% (Figure 16). Adoption of chat or text calls in the U.S. remained lower than in other regions,
        \naccounting for just 0.03% (Figure 16) or approximately 500 touchpoints weekly, versus approximately 20,000
        \nin Asia Pacific, and 6,500 in Europe, even amid its seasonal slowdown.\n<\/li>\n
      3. Content utilization in ³Ô¹Ï±¬ÁÏ Engage meetings remained at 80% (Figure 21), while the average ³Ô¹Ï±¬ÁÏ CRM
        \nEngage meeting duration in the U.S. remained the highest of any region at 18 minutes.\n<\/li>\n
      4. Despite maintaining the volume of email delivered via ³Ô¹Ï±¬ÁÏ CRM Approved Email, open rates declined by
        \n2% since June, ending the quarter at 28%, and click rates decreased by 1% (Figure 20).\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Figure 15 I <\/span>Channel Mix Evolution, U.S.<\/h3>\n

        \"\"<\/p>\n

        Figure 16 I <\/span>Channel Mix, U.S.<\/h3>\n

        \"\"<\/p>\n

        U.S. Field Team Activity<\/h3>\n

        Weekly Activity Per User by Engagement Channel\n<\/p>\n

        Figure 17 I <\/span>Activity, U.S.<\/h3>\n

        \"\"<\/p>\n

        \n
        \n

        Figure 18 I <\/span>Activity by User Type<\/h3>\n

        \t\t\"\"\n\t<\/div>\n

        \n

        Figure 19 I <\/span>Activity by Company Size<\/h3>\n

        \t\t\"\"\n\t<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

        U.S. Engagement Quality<\/h3>\n

        Consolidation of Key Quality Metrics\n<\/p>\n

        Figure 20 I <\/span>Approved Email Volume, U.S.<\/h3>\n

        \"\"<\/p>\n

        Figure 21 I <\/span>Content Usage by Channel, U.S.<\/h3>\n

        \"\"<\/p>\n

        Figure 22 I <\/span>Engage Meeting Duration, U.S.<\/h3>\n

        \"\"<\/p>\n

        Europe market trends<\/h2>\n
          \n
        1. The European region saw the most dramatic increase in content utilization during this time period.
          \nContent utilization in video meetings increased by 10%, while in-person content usage increased by 7%
          \n(Figure 29).<\/li>\n
        2. Despite the nearly identical weekly total activity, France and the U.K. significantly differed in how the field
          \nengaged with customers. The in-person mix in France was more than double that in the U.K., with the U.K.
          \nfilling the engagement gap through a higher mix of video and email. Video usage in the U.K. was the highest
          \nin Europe at three meetings per user per week.<\/li>\n
        3. Medical users recorded one-third of the email volume compared to sales and KAM users (Figure 26).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          Figure 23 I <\/span>Channel Mix Evolution, Europe<\/h3>\n

          \"\"<\/p>\n

          Figure 24 I <\/span>Channel Mix, Europe<\/h3>\n

          \"\"<\/p>\n

          Europe Field Team Activity<\/h3>\n

          Weekly Activity Per User by Engagement Channel\n<\/p>\n

          Figure 25 I <\/span>Activity by Country in Europe<\/h3>\n

          \"\"<\/p>\n

          \n
          \n

          Figure 26 I <\/span>Activity by User Type<\/h3>\n

          \t\t\"\"\n\t<\/div>\n

          \n

          Figure 27 I <\/span>Activity by Company Size<\/h3>\n

          \t\t\"\"\n\t<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

          Europe Engagement Quality<\/h3>\n

          Consolidation of Key Quality Metrics\n<\/p>\n

          Figure 28 I <\/span>Approved Email Volume, Europe<\/h3>\n

          \"\"<\/p>\n

          Figure 29 I <\/span>Content Usage by Channel, Europe<\/h3>\n

          \"\"<\/p>\n

          Figure 30 I <\/span>Engage Meeting Duration, Europe<\/h3>\n

          \"\"<\/p>\n

          Asia Pacific market trends<\/h2>\n
            \n
          1. In-person engagement made up 77% of the channel mix in the Asia Pacific region (Figure 32) this quarter.
            \nThe Asia Pacific region incorporated more chat or text messages into its channel mix than other regions,
            \nrepresenting 2% of total activity (Figure 32).<\/li>\n
          2. Content utilization remained very high, with usage greater than any other major region in each of the
            \nthree channels (Figure 37). In-person content utilization saw the largest increase, reaching 59% by the end
            \nof the quarter.<\/li>\n
          3. ³Ô¹Ï±¬ÁÏ Engage meeting duration (11 minutes) was also the lowest of all the major regions (Figure 38).<\/li>\n
          4. India recorded the highest weekly total user activity, with 85 touchpoints per user per week. This was driven
            \nby in-person engagement, with 67 in-person touchpoints per week (Figure 33).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            Figure 31 I <\/span>Channel Mix Evolution, Asia Pacific<\/h3>\n

            \"\"<\/p>\n

            Figure 32 I <\/span>Channel Mix, Asia Pacific<\/h3>\n

            \"\"<\/p>\n

            Asia Pacific Field Team Activity<\/h3>\n

            Weekly Activity Per User by Engagement Channel\n<\/p>\n

            Figure 33 I <\/span>Activity by Country, Asia Pacific<\/h3>\n

            \"\"<\/p>\n

            \n
            \n

            Figure 34 I <\/span>Activity by User Type<\/h3>\n

            \t\t\"\"\n\t<\/div>\n

            \n

            Figure 35 I <\/span>Activity by Company Size<\/h3>\n

            \t\t\"\"\n\t<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

            Asia Pacific Engagement Quality<\/h3>\n

            Consolidation of Key Quality Metrics\n<\/p>\n

            Figure 36 I <\/span>Approved Email Volume, Asia Pacific<\/h3>\n

            \"\"<\/p>\n

            Figure 37 I <\/span>Content Usage by Channel, Asia Pacific<\/h3>\n

            \"\"<\/p>\n

            Figure 38 I <\/span>Engage Meeting Duration, Asia Pacific<\/h3>\n

            \"\"<\/p>\n

            Latin America market trends<\/h2>\n
              \n
            1. In Latin America, the volume of total weekly activity remained consistent throughout the quarter. Mirroring
              \nglobal trends, in-person was the preferred HCP engagement channel, accounting for 75% of the channel mix.
              \nEmail interactions were the second most preferred engagement channel, responsible for 17% of the channel
              \nmix (Figure 40).<\/li>\n
            2. Total user productivity was consistently high across all individual markets compared to other major regions,
              \nwith all markets registering more than 50 touchpoints weekly per user. Countries with higher user productivity,
              \nsuch as Ecuador (67), had greater in-person engagements (52) compared to those with lower user productivity
              \n(Figure 41).<\/li>\n
            3. Unique to Latin America, content usage increased across all meeting channels. This improvement was most
              \nsignificant in ³Ô¹Ï±¬ÁÏ CRM Engage meetings, where content usage increased to 91% (Figure 45).<\/li>\n
            4. As expected, sales reps had the highest activity. However, in line with global trends, medical representatives
              \nrecorded the highest proportion of activity (two calls per user per week) in the video channel (Figure 42).<\/li>\n
            5. The volume of delivered ³Ô¹Ï±¬ÁÏ CRM Approved Email remained consistent throughout the quarter at
              \napproximately 150K weekly; however, open rates declined by 6% since April, ending at 40% by the end of the
              \nquarter (Figure 44).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

              Figure 39 I <\/span>Channel Mix Evolution, Latin America<\/h3>\n

              \"\"<\/p>\n

              Figure 40 I <\/span>Channel Mix, Latin America<\/h3>\n

              \"\"<\/p>\n

              Latin America Field Team Activity<\/h3>\n

              Weekly Activity Per User by Engagement Channel\n<\/p>\n

              Figure 41 I <\/span>Activity by Country, Latin America<\/h3>\n

              \"\"<\/p>\n

              \n
              \n

              Figure 42 I <\/span>Activity by User Type<\/h3>\n

              \t\t\"\"\n\t<\/div>\n

              \n

              Figure 43 I <\/span>Activity by Company Size<\/h3>\n

              \t\t\"\"\n\t<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

              Latin America Engagement Quality<\/h3>\n

              Consolidation of Key Quality Metrics\n<\/p>\n

              Figure 44 I <\/span>Approved Email Volume, Latin America<\/h3>\n

              \"\"<\/p>\n

              Figure 45 I <\/span>Content Usage by Channel, Latin America<\/h3>\n

              \"\"<\/p>\n

              Figure 46 I <\/span>Engage Meeting Duration, Latin America<\/h3>\n

              \"\"<\/p>\n

              Appendix: Data Dictionary<\/h2>\n

              Metric definitions<\/h3>\n