{"id":19195,"date":"2015-10-27T02:27:33","date_gmt":"2015-10-27T02:27:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.sisinternational.com\/?page_id=19195"},"modified":"2026-05-05T16:58:22","modified_gmt":"2026-05-05T20:58:22","slug":"cv-van-ervaring-in-de-gezondheidszorg","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.sisinternational.com\/nl\/expertise\/cvs-van-ervaring\/cv-van-ervaring-in-de-gezondheidszorg\/","title":{"rendered":"Resume of Experience in Healthcare Market Research"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Healthcare Market Onderzoek<\/a> Ervaring<\/h1>\n
\"SIS<\/figure>\n<\/p>\n

SIS is een toonaangevend bedrijf in Healthcare Research. Ontdek onze eerdere ervaring.<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n

Resume of Experience in Healthcare Market Research: How Leading Firms Build Decision-Grade Evidence<\/h1>\n

A credible resume of experience in healthcare market research signals one capability above all others: the ability to convert clinical, payer, and patient evidence into commercial decisions that hold up under scrutiny. VP-level buyers at Fortune 500 manufacturers do not buy methodology decks. They buy confidence that launch sequencing, indication prioritization, and payer value stories will survive contact with the market.<\/p>\n

The healthcare buyers who get the most from outside research treat it as decision infrastructure, not deliverable inventory. The pattern shows up across pharma, medical devices, diagnostics, and health services. The firms that win are the ones that integrate KOL mapping, patient journey mapping, and HTA submission evidence into a single argument the commercial team can defend in a portfolio review.<\/p>\n

What a Healthcare Market Research Resume of Experience Should Demonstrate<\/h2>\n

The strongest resume of experience in marktonderzoek gezondheidszorg<\/a> is structured around decisions, not studies. A line item that reads “200 physician interviews across five EU markets” tells a buyer nothing. The same engagement framed as “indication prioritization for a second-line oncology asset, validated against payer value story and competitive biosimilar threat” tells the buyer the work shaped a go\/no-go.<\/p>\n

Three signals separate practitioner-grade healthcare research from generic field-and-tab work. First, evidence of triangulation across HCPs, patients, and payers in the same engagement. Second, named methodology choices tied to the decision: ATU studies for launch readiness, message testing for sales force enablement, conjoint analysis for formulary positioning. Third, real-world evidence integration, not just primary fieldwork.<\/p>\n

According to SIS International Research, healthcare engagements that combine structured KOL interviews with patient journey mapping and payer pressure-testing produce launch forecasts that hold up against actual uptake far more reliably than studies built on physician surveys alone.<\/span> The integration is the value, not the sample size.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Methodologies That Carry Weight in Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Research<\/h2>\n

Senior healthcare buyers recognize a short list of methodologies as table stakes. KOL mapping with tiered influence scoring. Patient journey mapping anchored to diagnosis-to-treatment timelines. Payer advisory boards with blinded asset profiles. Real-world evidence pulls from claims and EHR data. Message testing with iterative refinement across HCP segments.<\/p>\n

The differentiator is how these are sequenced. Launch sequencing for a specialty asset typically runs payer feasibility before HCP message testing, because formulary risk constrains the value story before clinicians ever see it. Teams that run HCP work first and payer work second often discover the value proposition the sales force has been trained on cannot survive a P&T committee.<\/p>\n

SIS International has run mixed-methodology healthcare programs across the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Brazil, and Japan, including qualitative oncology work with gastric cancer and GEJC patients alongside treating physicians. The recruitment standard for rare and serious indications is strict: verified diagnosis, consented chart access where applicable, and physician corroboration of treatment line. That standard is what separates a usable patient panel from a directionally interesting one.<\/p>\n

Where Healthcare Research Programs Generate Disproportionate Returns<\/h2>\n

The highest-ROI healthcare research programs cluster around four decision points: indication prioritization, launch readiness, payer value story development, and biosimilar competitive intelligence. Each compresses years of commercial risk into a defined evidence base.<\/p>\n

Indication prioritization research pays for itself when it reorders a development pipeline. A second indication with a stronger payer value story and a less crowded competitive set frequently outperforms a first indication with broader epidemiology. The research that surfaces this is conjoint-based payer work paired with HCP unmet need quantification, not literature review.<\/p>\n

Launch readiness research pays off when it identifies the specific formulary objections the medical affairs team has not yet rehearsed. Payer pressure-testing with blinded competitor profiles produces objections in the language P&T committees actually use, which is rarely the language found in published HTA submissions.<\/p>\n

SIS International’s proprietary research across pharmaceutical and medical device engagements indicates that the launches with the steepest uptake curves are consistently those where the payer value story was stress-tested against blinded competitor profiles before the HCP message track was finalized. The reverse sequence produces sales forces fluent in claims their formulary access cannot support.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Global Healthcare Markets That Demand Local Methodology Calibration<\/h2>\n

Healthcare research does not travel cleanly across borders. The fieldwork standard that works in the United States breaks in Japan, where physician access runs through specialized panels with strict verification protocols. Brazilian healthcare research requires SUS-versus-private channel separation in nearly every patient and HCP study. UK and French work has to account for NICE and HAS evidence thresholds that shape what HCPs will say about a new asset.<\/p>\n

A credible resume of experience in healthcare market research shows specific country execution, not a map with pins. Brazil mixed-methodology programs at n=200 require recruitment partners with verified physician credentials, IRB-equivalent ethics review where applicable, and translation protocols that preserve clinical precision. Japan requires panel access through verified physician databases with strict subscription verification. The US oncology patient work referenced above ran through Zoom interviews with full transcript and moderator support, which is now standard for serious-indication qualitative.<\/p>\n

How to Read a Healthcare Research Firm’s Resume of Experience<\/h2>\n

VP-level buyers evaluating a resume of experience in healthcare market research should look for five things: named therapeutic areas with project-level depth, geographic execution beyond a single region, evidence of payer and HCP integration in the same engagement, recruitment standards for rare and serious indications, and named senior moderators or analysts attached to the work.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Resume Signal<\/th>\nWhat It Indicates<\/th>\nWhat To Probe<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Therapeutic area depth<\/td>\nPractitioner familiarity with clinical context<\/td>\nAsk for the specific decision the work informed<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Multi-stakeholder integration<\/td>\nPayer, HCP, patient triangulation<\/td>\nAsk how findings reconciled across audiences<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Country-level execution<\/td>\nLocal recruitment and ethics capability<\/td>\nAsk about verification and IRB protocols<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Methodology naming<\/td>\nDecision-specific design<\/td>\nAsk why that method, not an adjacent one<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Senior team attachment<\/td>\nContinuity from proposal to delivery<\/td>\nAsk who moderates and who analyzes<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n

Source: SIS International Research<\/em><\/p>\n

The SIS International Position in Healthcare Market Research<\/h2>\n

SIS International Research has supported healthcare and life sciences clients across more than 135 countries for over four decades, with engagements spanning pharmaceutical launch research, medical device adoption studies, healthcare staffing brand work, and oncology patient and physician qualitative research<\/a>. The firm’s healthcare practice integrates B2B expert interviews, patient ethnographic research, payer advisory boards, and competitive intelligence into single decision-grade programs.<\/p>\n

The standard SIS applies to healthcare work is the standard the client’s medical, legal, and regulatory review will apply later. That alignment is what allows a resume of experience in healthcare market research to function as a procurement document rather than a marketing one.<\/p>\n

Over SIS Internationaal<\/h2>\n

SIS Internationaal<\/a> biedt kwantitatief, kwalitatief en strategisch onderzoek. Wij bieden data, tools, strategie\u00ebn, rapporten en inzichten voor besluitvorming. Wij voeren ook interviews, enqu\u00eates, focusgroepen en andere marktonderzoeksmethoden en -benaderingen uit. Neem contact met ons op<\/a> voor uw volgende marktonderzoeksproject.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/p>\n

\n

Related SIS Resources<\/h3>\n