There is the knowledge gap between medically trained personnel, such as a physician and their patients. This is demonstrated in how medical professional speak to their patients and it extended to how entire organizations, such as pharmaceutical companies, communicate with them. The knowledge gap stems from several key factors. Firstly, educational background plays a significant role; a medical professional undergoes extensive training in anatomy, physiology, pathology, pharmacology, and treatment strategies. Most patients, by contrast, have limited medical education and varying levels of health literacy.

The complexity of medical information contributes to this gap. Medical terminology and diagnostic criteria are often highly technical, making it challenging for laypeople to fully comprehend even the most basic of health topics. Additionally, the difference in experience and context is crucial, as doctors gain practical insights from real-world clinical settings, enabling them to apply their knowledge effectively, whereas patients may struggle to relate medical advice to their personal circumstances.

Access to information further exacerbates the divide. Doctors use professional journals, medical databases, and advanced diagnostic tools, while patients typically rely on general internet searches. We all know that these can result in incomplete or inaccurate information. Access to information is a core assumption around patient-centred care and empowerment, but what if this information is terrible, not evidence-based? What if the information that is from a reliable, medical source is poorly understood anyway, so they opt for the information that they are able to grasp? Where does that leave patient empowerment?

Whether the medical professional widens or closes the knowledge gap is a choice. They deliberately opt to accommodate to the patient or to alienate them by the lexical and stylistic choices they make. Sometimes it can be a deliberate choice in order to make themselves sound authoritative. After all, using jargon shows how clever a person is. This means that sometimes deliberate choice of style can be a part of an ego trip too, but, ultimately, this comes at the expense of the patient’s wellbeing and eventual health outcomes.

Let me explain that again: how they communicate with patients is a choice. It is a choice between either cultivating their own ego or addressing the needs of their patients. It is a choice between pushing the patient away or bringing them closer to them.

This is not just happening in medical encounters, but it extends across the entire life sciences industries, including and especially the pharmaceutical industry. It is evident in the points of patient contact where written information is provided, where, sadly, it is the norm for patients to receive shoddily written materials that are consistently difficult to access, process and act upon. There is little to no appetite for change. It is my opinion that this resistance, this stasis, not only alienates the patient, but treats them with disdain.

This is the key practice that demonstrates the level of sincerity a company has to the Patient Voice agenda. If they do not concern themselves with what a patient has understood from their consent form, if they understood it at all, then the commitment they claim to have regarding the Patient Voice is completely fake. It is as simple as that.

Written by Mark Gibson

Leeds, United Kingdom, January 2025