Speaking for the profession with one voice
Coordinated advocacy gives medical writers a shared point of contact for journalists, editors and other professional bodies, combining a clear message with the ability to respond promptly.
Shared representation
When several associations and individuals answer a controversy independently, the profession can speak with a fragmented voice, leaving editors uncertain which body to approach for a credible, clear and quick answer. AMWA, EMWA and ISMPP have overlapping memberships, educational programmes and goals, and by 2022 had collaborated on joint position statements about systemic and institutional problems.
Alliances can extend beyond medical-writing associations to academia, scientific journals and regulators. Collaboration with overlapping bodies such as SCOPE, ICMJE, TransCelerate and the Patient Information Forum could pool resources and expertise and strengthen contributions to guidelines, templates and public information. A global community developing common skills was proposed in 2022 as an extension of largely regional association networks, with pandemic-era virtual conferences and training demonstrating access across borders. Sharing solutions across companies and building trusting relationships among contractors, sponsors and investigators can also strengthen cooperation.
Proposals for a common contact
A proposed International Committee of Professional Medical Writers, modelled on ICMJE, would provide:
- A credible response through respected representatives of medical-writing associations worldwide, complementing existing associations.
- A clear response through a unified international voice.
- A quick response, serving as the initial contact and replying within 24–48 hours.
The committee could also raise issues of concern to the associations, developing two-way relationships with editors and journalists as trust grew.
A related 2009 proposal called for an international liaison among the profession’s separate associations to improve understanding of who medical writers are and what they do. Integration need not create one monolithic association: a shared point of contact could unite communication around common ground, reflecting the global reach of clients, research, product sales and the profession. AMWA’s executive committee was pursuing greater collaboration with allied organisations in 2010.
Contact with editors and professional bodies
In September 1992, AMWA met an FDA team for two hours, presenting its history, members’ work, writing processes, project-team roles and educational programme. The meeting followed discussions of scientific rigour, fair balance and disclosure and included commitments to refine the association’s ethics code, provide ethics teaching and develop a statement disclosing professional writing assistance.
The Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing changed a ban on writer-prepared articles after exchanges with medical writers and publication of an article about their work in PLoS Medicine, and published correspondence explaining their value and ethics.
At an American Medical Association conference on continuing-medical-education industry/provider collaboration, an AMWA president argued for medical writers’ role in making expert information understandable. After the presentation, the AMWA president was invited to the task force, where she later co-chaired enduring-materials deliberations and represented medical writers until 2001. AMWA was subsequently urged to continue representing members as controversies returned, with members supporting the association and remaining vigilant in their own work.
Proactive relationships with the Association of Health Care Journalists, the National Association of Science Writers and major news organisations were proposed to improve awareness of legitimate medical-writing contributions. Advocacy should also recognise the value of journalists investigating unethical conduct rather than allowing it to remain hidden. Editorials and letters can reach an audience beyond the original exchange, using the publication to amplify corrective messages.
A rapid-response volunteer model
The Global Alliance of Publication Professionals (GAPP) began in January 2012 and launched publicly at the start of February, following the 2009 call for a faster, unified voice. It brought together five volunteers from Europe, North America and Asia-Pacific with current or former leadership experience in AMWA, EMWA or ISMPP. Its founders were Karen Woolley, Art Gertel, Cindy Hamilton, Gene Snyder and Adam Jacobs.
GAPP aimed to correct misinformed reporting about medical writing, educate people who misunderstood the profession and provide journalists with a credible source. It supported ethical publication practices in industry-sponsored and other research, professional medical writing and rejection of ghostwriting, ghost authorship and guest authorship.
Association statements can be delayed by committee approval, while individuals can respond quickly with less representative authority. GAPP occupied the gap between these responses, speaking for its five members rather than thousands and complementing official association statements. AMWA, EMWA and ISMPP supported the concept in principle. Its members did not represent their associations within GAPP.
The volunteer model divided the year into ten- to twelve-week blocks, each with a lead responder who drafted a reply, incorporated colleagues’ feedback and submitted it. Before its first response, members agreed communication points and supporting references, while a website, LinkedIn and Twitter accounts made its identity and activities accessible to supporters, critics and wider networks.
GAPP requested three forms of support:
- Scouts could flag articles by email or tweet for a timely, credible reply, with a target response within two working days.
- Members could request testimonials from respected authors explaining why they use professional medical writers, helping build a database to reassure apprehensive authors.
- Members could refer journalists seeking information about medical writing, providing access to professional perspectives under deadline pressure.
The Association of Health Care Journalists’ principles identify gathering information from varied sources as a key principle. Discussions with friends, colleagues and family can also spread accurate information beyond professional networks.
GAPP began as a one-year pilot, continued in 2013 and recognised the need for succession planning. It published responses in international peer-reviewed journals and answered mainstream and online media, combining reactive work with proactive advocacy. Conference organisers invited it to brief attendees, and its members considered their work a practical, cost-effective example of collaboration across associations, regions and time zones.
Retirement and continued responsibility
GAPP announced its retirement effective at the close of the ISMPP meeting on 2 May 2018, after six years and approximately fifty responses. Its membership changed over time while retaining different association backgrounds and geographical coverage. By then, debate had shifted towards data disclosure and clinical-trial transparency, fewer articles focused on professional writing support and GAPP had answered only four articles in 2017.
The retiring team judged that professional organisations had developed enough to resume responsibility for coordinated, timely rebuttals. It planned to retain the website and response archive and monitor its contact address, while asking the profession to remain alert to inaccurate, misinformed or outdated coverage.