The working week in industry posts
Working conditions in pharmaceutical and medical-device writing include hours, leave, office arrangements and workload pressures. Survey comparisons describe differences between these settings, while individual workplaces can set policies that limit overtime and protect time away.
Hours and leave
A survey conducted from 8 to 14 March 2016 received 112 responses from medical writers in pharmaceuticals and medical devices; comparisons of working conditions focused on industry and agency respondents, excluding five freelancers or consultants. Among 96 respondents answering about hours, five (5%) worked fewer than 30 hours a week. The reported hours and annual paid leave, excluding weekends and public holidays, differed between the two fields.
| Working hours or leave | Pharmaceutical writers | Device writers |
|---|---|---|
| 30–40 hours a week | 50% | 14% |
| More than 40 and up to 50 hours a week | 34% | 68% |
| More than 50 hours a week | 9% | 11% |
| 15–20 paid holiday days a year | 22% | 43% |
| More than 20 and up to 30 paid holiday days a year | 64% | 36% |
Leave was generally lower in the United States: 44% of US respondents received 15–20 days, while 75% of European staff received 25–30 days.
Location and colleague contact
Among 97 respondents answering about location, 54% of pharmaceutical and 57% of device writers were solely office-based, 10% and 8% solely home-based, and 36% and 35% attended the office occasionally or regularly. Small teams in one office accounted for 19% of pharmaceutical and 39% of device respondents; small teams across locations accounted for 30% and 36%, and large offices across multiple locations for 39% and 14%. Most had at least daily contact with colleagues, with 70% of pharmaceutical and 50% of device writers having contact several times a day.
Workload, support and satisfaction
Most responses to 15 quality-of-life questions were positive, with broad agreement between pharmaceutical and device writers. Device writers rated variety, homeworking opportunities, flexibility of hours and job security slightly higher; pharmaceutical staff turnover was higher. Pharmaceutical staff might receive more colleague support, while device work was possibly associated with less pressure, greater compatibility with family life, more enjoyment and job satisfaction, and feeling valued. Among 87 respondents, 87% of device and 67% of pharmaceutical writers considered their work beneficial to patients; among 84 respondents, 92% and 78%, respectively, would recommend their job.
Out-of-hours work and limited part-time opportunities were negative findings in both fields. Free-text answers from 44 pharmaceutical and 21 device respondents described extra-hours pressure on home life, simultaneous demands, long hours, insufficient resources, workload peaks and troughs, tight deadlines, changing priorities and management, paperwork, travel and repeated reviews. One respondent reported six months of 50-hour weeks, and some missed academia or felt they lacked benefits enjoyed by peers at a similar level. Pharmaceutical writers repeatedly mentioned unappreciative, disorganised clients and authors who did not respect their qualifications and experience. Some comments clearly came from agencies, including frustration at losing staff to better-paying competitors. Two device writers reported no bad points; individual pharmaceutical respondents described their jobs as repetitive or boring.
Discrimination had been experienced by 7 of 65 pharmaceutical respondents (11%) and 6 of 28 device respondents (21%). One respondent described cultural differences and misogyny in international work, writers not being valued as experts or contributors, and criticism and conflicting opinions during reviews sometimes becoming negative.
Of 49 pharmaceutical and 16 device respondents answering what they would change, seven and two, respectively, would change nothing, while one pharmaceutical writer would change everything. Desired changes included more resources, reduced workload, less bureaucracy, fewer meetings, more variety and writing opportunities, longer holidays, better salaries, advancement, better recruit training, and part-time or homeworking options. Changes to the work itself included better scientist–author–writer interaction, greater recognition of publication value and more opportunity for authorship.
Departmental limits on overtime
One medical-device writing department described in 2017 set a 9 am latest start within flexitime, followed a departmental philosophy of not taking work home at weekends and allowed overtime only exceptionally. The writer explained that writers outside clinical evaluation almost never faced sudden, difficult deadlines, and reported not working Fridays. Staff could take two discretionary days off annually by calling the office manager that morning, provided no meetings were scheduled.
The same workplace had a standing backlog of papers, and one colleague’s forthcoming five-week absence was to shift her workload to the two remaining writers. The account also described a shared office, departmental coffee breaks, an international team and a dog under the desk.