Pharmaceutical companies create patient materials to ensure safety, compliance, and informed decision-making. They help patients understand medications, trials, and treatments while meeting regulations and reducing legal risks.

Table 1: Key Types of Patient Information Materials

Many of these materials are dense, technical, and difficult for patients to understand. This can lead to disengagement, confusion, and non-adherence. Pharma companies are frequently urged to simplify language, use visuals, and prioritise patient-friendly design.

Face-Sensitive Communication and Cultural Differences

How does ‘face’ influence patient-centric document design across cultures? Concepts of face, authority, and autonomy vary across contexts, affecting patient trust, decision-making, and engagement with healthcare professionals.

Face work in clinical encounters significantly impacts patient behaviour, where patients do most of the face work to uphold clinician authority. In collectivist cultures (e.g., Malaysia), where group harmony is prioritised, patients avoid asking questions or challenging medical advice to preserve relationships. In contrast, individualist cultures (e.g., USA) encourage autonomy, making direct, data-driven communication more effective. Similarly, high-context cultures rely on implied meaning and indirect language, while low-context cultures expect clear, explicit information.

Understanding these differences is critical for pharmaceutical companies developing materials such as informed consent forms (ICFs), clinical outcomes assessments (COAs), medication guides, and patient engagement strategies. If face-sensitive communication is not factored into document design, patient participation and understanding could be compromised, particularly in regions where face work is central to social interaction.

Cultural influences on patient engagement can be examined through three key dimensions:

• Collectivist versus individualist cultures

• High-context versus low-context communication styles

• Power distance

Collectivist vs. Individualist Cultures

Collectivist cultures prioritise group harmony and interdependence over individual needs, meaning patients often defer healthcare decisions to family members or doctors. Individualist cultures, on the other hand, emphasise autonomy and personal responsibility, with patients expecting full control over their medical choices.

Table 2: Collectivist and Individualist Cultures Compared

Implications for Pharma:

• For collectivist cultures, include family in decision-making.

• Use reassuring, indirect language (e.g., “Many patients find this treatment helpful”), unlike the direct style preferred in individualist cultures.

• Engagement initiatives should be community-based, rather than individual consultations.

  
  

High-Context vs. Low-Context Communication

High-context cultures rely on implicit communication, shared social norms, and trusted intermediaries, such as doctors and family. Low-context cultures expect explicit, detailed, and fact-based communication without requiring social cues.

Table 3: High-Context vs. Low-Context Communication

Implications for Pharma:

• Use visual storytelling, metaphors, and case studies instead of data-heavy content, which is more suitable for low-context cultures.

• In high-context cultures, information must be communicated by trusted figures like doctors or pharmacists.

• Patient materials in high-context cultures must adopt a respectful, deferential style.

Power Distance in Healthcare

High power distance cultures view doctors as authority figures, with patients deferring to medical expertise and rarely questioning recommendations. Low power distance cultures promote shared decision-making, where patients are encouraged to challenge and discuss medical advice.

Table 4: Power Distance in Healthcare

Implications for Pharma:

• In high power distance cultures, guidance must be framed as expert advice rather than patient choice (e.g., “Your doctor recommends this treatment because it has been tested for safety and effectiveness”).

• Healthcare professionals should be primary communicators of drug information.

• In consent discussions, study personnel should expect to involve family members.

Understanding cultural differences in decision-making, communication styles, and attitudes toward authority is essential for pharmaceutical companies aiming to enhance patient engagement. Whether navigating collectivist or individualist mindsets, high-context or low-context communication, or power distance dynamics, pharma companies must tailor their approach to ensure information is accessible, culturally appropriate, and effectively communicated.

Aligning strategies with cultural expectations enhances trust, comprehension, and adherence, ultimately leading to better patient outcomes.

On the basis of this, does a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach work for patient information across cultures? This will be covered in the next article.

Thank you for reading!

Mark Gibson

Boston, USA, November 2024