Question 1

How are mixed-mode designs evolving in response to declining phone survey?

Accepted Answer

As phone survey response rates decline, mixed-mode designs now rely on online and text as the primary channels while using phone calls more selectively. Researchers often begin with a web survey link or SMS invitation because people are far more likely to respond digitally than answer an unknown call. The phone hasn't disappeared — it's used as a follow-up for those who don't respond online (for instance, some older adults who still prefer a call). Mixed-mode strategies also increasingly give respondents a choice: a survey invite might let people pick between an online survey or calling in to complete it, so everyone can use their preferred method. This flexibility tends to boost participation. On the backend, improved integration and weighting ensure that data from different modes aligns, maintaining quality. In short, phone surveys have become just one part of a broader toolkit: we reach most respondents via online/text for efficiency, and use phone outreach in a targeted way to cover the gaps, adapting to modern communication preferences.

Question 2

How can cultural context affect focus group results?

Accepted Answer

Cultural context can profoundly affect focus group results by influencing how participants communicate, what feedback they give, and whether they speak up. Group dynamics vary widely: in some cultures, people are candid and share individual opinions freely, whereas in others, participants might hold back criticism or just agree with the majority out of politeness or respect. The same product concept might get enthusiastic feedback in one country but muted responses in another — not because the idea is better or worse, but because norms around expressing criticism differ. Language and local references also matter: a joke or example used by a moderator might click in one culture and confuse in another, and even body language or silence can have different meanings (a pause could signal thoughtfulness in one place but discomfort in another). Researchers must interpret focus group feedback through a cultural lens, often by using culturally fluent moderators and tweaking questions to fit local norms. By accounting for these differences, companies avoid misreading polite silence as agreement or lively debate as conflict, ensuring insights are valid and actionable across markets.

Question 3

What practices improve usability testing for complex medical devices?

Accepted Answer

Usability testing for complex medical devices works best when it closely mirrors real usage and involves actual end-users early and often. In practice, this means recruiting representative participants - like clinicians, patients, or caregivers who would use the device - and testing in realistic scenarios or simulated environments (for example, a mock operating room or home setting). Tasks should reflect real critical use cases, not just simple walkthroughs, to uncover any design issues that could lead to use errors. It's also important to incorporate iterative rounds: after an initial test reveals pain points, the design can be refined and re-tested. By focusing on context and realism - plus following industry guidelines for medical human factors - these practices ensure the device is intuitive and safe to use in the real world.

Question 4

How is pressure on drug pricing affecting pharma market research priorities?

Accepted Answer

Under intense scrutiny to justify drug costs, pharmaceutical companies are refocusing their market research efforts on demonstrating value and understanding pricing perceptions. For instance, there's a surge in health economics and outcomes research studies that quantify a drug's real-world benefits relative to its price, helping to show payers and regulators that a treatment is worth the cost. Market research is also increasingly probing the perspectives of insurers and healthcare providers on pricing: companies want to know how cost concerns affect formulary placement, prescribing decisions, or therapy adoption. At the same time, patient-centric research has gained priority - exploring issues like whether high co-pays are causing patients to skip doses, how sensitive different patient groups are to price changes, and what messaging about value resonates with the public. In short, as pricing pressure grows, pharma market research is pivoting toward uncovering insights that can support pricing strategy, value communication, and access negotiations.

Question 5

Where do AI-driven qual methods most need to improve?

Accepted Answer

AI-driven qualitative methods still need big improvements in capturing human nuance and context to match the depth of traditional qualitative research. For example, an AI can rapidly transcribe and sort through interview data or even conduct basic chatbot interviews, but it often misses subtle cues like sarcasm, tone shifts, or body language that human moderators use to probe deeper. Current AI text analysis might flag keywords or sentiment, yet it can struggle to understand the underlying "why" behind responses or adjust on the fly when a participant says something unexpected. Another area for improvement is transparency: AI-generated themes or summaries sometimes feel like a black box, leaving researchers unsure how the AI arrived at those insights. In short, AI-driven qual tools need better contextual understanding, emotional intelligence, and explainability before they can fully rival a human-led qualitative approach.

Research & Marketing Strategies, Inc. (RMS)

Why choose Us

What is Research & Marketing Strategies, Inc. (RMS)?

Services and Expertise