One thing that’s becoming increasingly clear in healthcare is that patients today are more informed, more active, and more involved in their treatment decisions than ever before. Traditionally, medical device marketing has focused almost entirely on healthcare professionals (surgeons, hospital administrators, and procurement teams) since they’re the ones making the purchasing decisions. But as patient advocacy grows and people take a bigger role in choosing their care options, maybe it’s time to rethink this approach.
I think there’s a strong argument for involving patients more directly in marketing strategies. After all, they are the end users of many of these devices, either directly (like wearable monitors or implants) or indirectly (as the ones benefiting from surgical tools or diagnostics). Getting patient input early in the messaging process could help companies shape marketing content that is clearer, more transparent, and more relevant to real-world concerns. For example, patients often care about comfort, recovery time, or quality of life more than technical specs, insights that might not come from clinicians alone.
However, there are challenges too. Patient involvement could blur the line between education and influence, especially if marketing tries to appeal to emotions rather than evidence. There’s also a question of ethics: would involving patients make marketing more authentic, or would it risk exploiting their experiences for profit?
I think the key might be collaboration. Companies could work with patient advocacy groups or advisory panels to co-develop campaigns that are both informative and respectful. They could even include real patient feedback or outcome data in marketing materials — not just testimonials, but meaningful evidence that builds trust.
My question is: Should patients have a seat at the table when companies plan marketing strategies? Could this make medical device marketing more ethical and impactful, or would it complicate things too much?
Thanks for your contribution!
Involving patients in marketing strategies can be beneficial, but there are also downsides. Having someone who might potentially use your product be able to give input on what other products they use and what made them buy those products would be beneficial for the company, for them to work on marketing strategies. However, not every patient’s experience/testimonial will be the same, so what one patient thinks is a good marketing strategy, another might disagree. As Dr. Simon mentioned in this week’s lecture, having sales representatives and customer service representatives in meetings is beneficial because they have valuable first-hand knowledge of customer needs and insights into marketing strategies.
I certainly agree that patient perspectives greatly add value to marketing strategies, particularly as patients are increasingly seen as partners in their own care. However, I also think it's essential to consider how this shift could lead to a change in the concept of marketing in the medical device space.
Much classic marketing has been promotional in the sense that devices' "innovative" or "cutting-edge" capabilities are often highlighted at the forefront. However, if companies directly engage with patients, the focus may need to shift to a more educational and evidence-based approach. Thus, companies might instead need to discuss how a device may impact daily life, recovery experience, and self-management of chronic conditions. This could not only aid in marketing and patient education but also align business goals with responsible and ethical patient communication.
Meanwhile, companies should tread lightly as there is a line between empowering patients and manipulating them. If patients co-create marketing messages, there needs to be regulations in place to prevent ad campaigns from becoming overly persuasive to ensure accurate presentation to the mass public.
What would the ethical review look like for marketing content when patients are involved in its conception?
Patients should definitely have a say in the design of their products for companies. As they are the end users for the devices intended to solve or at least mitigate their ailment(s), they can discuss what they enjoy most about the product(s), and, more importantly, what the manufacturer can improve on. This way, the sales reps can solidify their understanding of the target audience for the product they’re selling, and gain more intimate insight that can be passed on to engineering & marketing teams. In turn, a company’s willingness to incorporate patient involvement not only improves product quality but also strengthens its public image and marketing appeal through compiled data & research.
From an ethical standpoint, I believe it would drastically improve accountability and transparency. I would respectfully reword your statement and instead say that companies will learn from their clients to influence their marketing performance, ideally giving them an edge in the industry while mutually helping their clients. It guarantees patients the right to be heard, rather than blindly designing generalized products with a size that doesn’t fit all. They will maximize their benefits while minimizing the harm they may inflict on patients without their input. More importantly, openness will build greater trust in the manufacturer.
Adding to your points on collaboration, there are design validation & risk management regulations from the FDA and ISO themselves. These are known as 21 CFR 820.30 and ISO 14971, respectively. Using the FDA’s definition, it refers to “design controls” that ensure companies “establish and maintain procedures to ensure that the design requirements relating to a device are appropriate and address the intended use of the device, including the needs of the user and patient” (21 CFR 820.30). Companies have thus established initiatives such as patient engagement teams to interview & discuss features that may become design constraints (examples being Boston Scientific and Abbott). Some have taken this a step further and established post-market & continuous improvement surveys to guide new iterations of their products. Examples include Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs), which document patient feedback on devices/treatments, and the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE), a database for device complaints from the FDA.
