Question 1

How do we encourage stakeholders to use portals before asking for new studies?

Accepted Answer

The best way to get stakeholders using a research portal is to make it their fastest path to answers - in other words, show that checking the portal is easier than commissioning a new study. This starts with keeping the portal well-organized and up to date, so users trust that a quick search will surface relevant past insights. Some companies integrate the portal into everyday workflows, for example by embedding links to it in project request forms or team chat bots, nudging people to look there first. Highlighting success stories can help too ("Look how Product X team saved time by finding existing data in the portal"). The key is to demonstrate value: when stakeholders see that the portal saves them effort and provides credible information on demand, they naturally turn to it instead of reflexively asking for new research.

Question 2

What are the pros and cons of normalizing NPS across countries or segments?

Accepted Answer

Normalizing Net Promoter Score (NPS) across countries or segments can make cross-group comparisons fairer by accounting for cultural differences in scoring, but it also muddies the simplicity of the metric. On one hand, adjusting scores (say, by using z-scores or index scaling) helps correct for the fact that some cultures or customer segments naturally give lower or higher ratings on average. This prevents teams from penalizing a region just because its customers are tough graders, allowing a more apples-to-apples view of loyalty. On the other hand, once you alter NPS, it's no longer that straightforward "percent of promoters minus detractors" figure people easily understand. Leaders might question the adjustments, and if done poorly, normalization could obscure real sentiment differences. So while normalization has its benefits in fairness, it should be used sparingly and transparently — often the raw NPS and a qualitative context are still needed to tell the full story across diverse groups.

Question 3

Can AI models predict trial outcomes or patient adherence reliably?

Accepted Answer

AI models show promise in predicting clinical trial outcomes or patient adherence, but they aren't yet reliably accurate on their own. Machine learning algorithms can crunch historical trial data and electronic health records to spot patterns - like which patient profiles are more likely to drop out or which treatment arms might succeed. These predictions can help researchers allocate resources or identify risks early (for example, flagging patients who might need extra support to stick with a regimen). However, human biology and behavior are complex: an AI might overfit to past data or miss a new causal factor, leading to false confidence. Teams treat these model outputs as decision support rather than gospel. In practice, companies use AI insights to enhance planning and monitoring, but still rely on clinical expertise and real-world trial data to make final calls.

Question 4

How are global supply chain shifts affecting access to B2B audiences?

Accepted Answer

Global supply chain disruptions and realignments have made some Business-to-Business (B2B) audiences harder to reach and changed how researchers engage them. Companies shifting to local suppliers or diversifying partners create new stakeholder groups that may not be in traditional contact lists. For example, a firm that nearshores production could rely on smaller regional suppliers who aren't yet on industry panels, making them tougher to recruit. Researchers must adapt recruitment — leveraging professional networks or digital outreach — to find these emerging decision-makers. A pitfall is assuming old B2B panels still apply, as supply chain upheavals mean key voices might have moved to different regions or new companies. By updating sampling frames and staying attuned to industry shifts, studies can still reach the right experts despite the volatility.

Question 5

Can AI tools improve forecasting for new drug launches?

Accepted Answer

Yes, AI tools can make new drug launch forecasts more sophisticated by analyzing complex patterns across many data sources, but they complement rather than completely replace traditional forecasting. Forecasting a novel drug's uptake is tricky, especially with limited analogs. AI and machine learning can help by processing vast amounts of data — beyond what an analyst could handle — such as patient demographics, physician prescribing behaviors, formulary and insurance data, and even social media or key opinion leader sentiment. For example, an AI model might detect that a drug with a certain efficacy profile and marketing mix follows a launch trajectory similar to past drugs in related categories, adjusting predictions as real-world prescription data starts coming in. This often yields a more nuanced forecast that updates in near real time. However, because every new drug has unique aspects (a novel mechanism, different competition, regulatory nuances), AI predictions need expert oversight. Companies typically use AI-driven forecasts alongside traditional analog-based methods and expert input. The AI improves accuracy by uncovering patterns and early indicators, while human experts ensure the predictions make sense given any one-of-a-kind factors.

Infomine Healthcare Marketing Research - Middle East

What is Infomine Healthcare Marketing Research - Middle East?