Introduction

Presentations at medical congresses and symposiums are crucial for disseminating information and promoting healthcare products. But how important is the person delivering this information? Does it make a difference whether it's a practicing opinion leader or a company representative, even one who was formerly a peer? How does the audience's trust vary in receiving the same information from a renowned medical expert versus a company's product expert? Furthermore, how critical are the speaker’s eloquence and the physician's level of specialization in this context? These considerations may be particularly relevant to Medical Affairs, marketers, and Salesforces, highlighting the dynamics of information delivery and trust within the medical community. The data below could shed light on these matters, offering valuable insights into the effectiveness of various communication strategies used in medical settings to engage audiences and build credibility

Background

In Russia and CIS countries, payments from companies to healthcare professionals have long been a sensitive issue. Unlike the Sunshine Act in the US, the region lacked a formal regulatory initiative for transparency, leaving disclosure mainly to the companies themselves. In 2016, GlaxoSmithKline took a radical step by ceasing all payments to healthcare professionals for scientific and promotional activities. Instead, the company required these professionals to sign agreements for gratuitous services when presenting GSK products at congresses, expert councils, or scientific events. This approach aimed to eliminate potential conflicts of interest and increased trust. As a result, many thought leaders refused to collaborate under these conditions, prompting GSK to reorganize its Medical Science Liaison (MSL) team. The role shifted from independent consultants to medical advisors who personally presented product data at industry events, thus aligning with the new transparency and ethical standards.

Analysis

A study was conducted to investigate healthcare professionals' perceptions at medical congresses and conferences in seven major Russian cities. An independent agency conducted exit polls with 465 general practitioners (75.6%) and 150 specialists (24.4%). The events, organized by medical societies, featured MSLs from a company alongside federal and regional KOLs.

MSL selection criteria emphasized a minimum of five years' experience, internal certification, and an academic degree. MSL presentations required a minimum of 20 minutes, adherence to

corporate branding (without product mentions), and explicit disclosure of company affiliation to ensure transparency. Interestingly, MSLs disclosed their affiliation 100% of the time, whereas KOLs did so less often (under 10% of cases).

The study revealed that 65% of participants found the presented information practically valuable, with GPs rating usefulness higher than specialists. In terms of speaker performance, MSLs were rated higher for public speaking skills; 71% of respondents rated MSLs highly versus 45% for KOLs.

According to the distribution of opinions regarding trust in the presented information, 62% of all respondents trusted the information in the section overall. When it came to specific speaker types, 73% of respondents trusted the information presented by KOLs. In comparison, only 24% of respondents trusted information presented by MSLs. Specifically, the trust level for MSLs was higher among specialists (27%) compared to general practitioners (22%). Furthermore, KOLs generated greater audience interest, as evidenced by the average number of questions asked after presentations.

Takeaways:

1. Healthcare professionals (both general practitioners and specialists) exhibit significantly more trust in information conveyed by leaders of the medical community compared to information presented by company representatives.

2. MSLs and leaders of the medical community adhere to different standards of disclosure in their public presentations, highlighting variations in transparency and potential biases.

3. While developed public speaking skills are valuable, other factors such as speaker qualification, affiliation, and transparency in disclosing potential conflicts of interest appear to significantly influence the perception of trustworthiness within the medical community.

Conclusion

The study underscores the complex interplay between credibility, transparency, and trustworthiness in medical communications within the Russian healthcare context. While Medical Science Liaisons demonstrate strong communication skills and adhere to high standards of disclosure, healthcare professionals continue to place greater trust in established Key Opinion Leaders. These findings highlight the importance of transparency and professional reputation in influencing audience perceptions, suggesting that effective engagement in medical congresses depends not only on presentation skills but also on the perceived integrity and expertise of the speaker. For Medical Affairs teams, marketers, and salesforces, understanding these nuances is crucial for developing credible, trustworthy communication strategies that resonate with the medical community.

These findings reinforce the importance of building professional credibility to enhance trust in medical communication. While KOLs currently command a higher level of trust, initiatives that elevate the expertise and visibility of MSLs, such as board certification, may help bridge this gap. Survey data shows that 87% of KOLs perceive board-certified MSLs as more trustworthy, competent, and credible than their non-certified peers. For MSLs seeking to strengthen their professional reputation and better connect with medical audiences, many have become Board Certified Medical Affairs Specialists (BCMAS), representing one meaningful step toward building professional credibility and trust for themselves when speaking publicly or with KOLs.

References:

ROMIR. Survey conducted at seven RAACI conferences in Russia (Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Kazan, Krasnoyarsk, Voronezh, Samara, and Yekaterinburg), Russian Association of Allergists and Clinical Immunologists. 2018–2019.. https://raaci.ru/education/events.html.

Accreditation Council for Medical Affairs. Science Behind the Magic. 2025. https://medicalaffairsspecialist.org/resources/acma-research

About the Author: Aleksei Mironov, MD, PhD, BCMAS, is a global medical affairs leader with 15+ years’ experience in medical strategy, product launches, and digital health innovation across pharma and medtech.

Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/aleksei-mironov-15586690/