Tag Archives: Primary Research

How Primary Research Helps Companies Succeed?

By Angela Justamante, M.S., Consultant at Insights in Life Sciences (ilS).

Market Research is an organized effort to gather information about target markets or customers. It is a very important component of business strategy. Market Research is one of the key factors used in maintaining competitiveness over competitors, providing important information to identify and analyse the market need, market size and competition. Market Research techniques encompass both primary and secondary market research. 1

Whereas secondary research, also known as desk research, involves the summary, collation and/or synthesis of existing research, primary research involves the collection of data directly from the source of knowledge (physicians, patients, payers, Company representatives,…).

Primary research is generally conducted by third parties, in order to maintain as much objectivity as possible. Those providers should ideally be familiar with the Efpia code of practice (which recommends how organization should interact with healthcare professionals and patient organizations) . 3 Data collected through primary research is interpreted using statistical or analytical methods and techniques to gain insights and support decision making.

Primary market research can be made through qualitative techniques such as in-depth one to one interviews or quantitative techniques such as questionnaires. 2

The following case studies, allows to gain a better understanding of how primary research can support companies’ decision-making.

Case study: NIVEA deodorant “Pearl and Beauty”

Beiersdorf is a big German personal-care company based in Hamburg, Germany, that includes brands such as: NIVEA, Eucerin and Atrixo. One of the main reasons of Beiersdorf’s success is the in-depth market research they conduct (in a global context). The aim of this market research is to gather end user views, which provides insights that ultimately result in the development of new products suitable for a global market.

A clear picture of how market research has helped New Product Development (NPD) at Beiersdorf, is the case of a NIVEA Deodorant called Pearl and Beauty aimed at young women.

The objective of this primary market research was to understand the motivations for using deodorant amongst female consumers. The research involved small discussion groups of females, which helped researchers understand the beliefs and motivations of this group and revealed an interesting finding: apparently NIVEA lacked a specific product that addressed ‘underarm beauty’ for the female consumer.

As a result, this primary market research revealed an unexplored market potential for NIVEA Deodorant. And, in order to fulfil this market need, NIVEA successfully launched to the market a Deodorant called Pearl and Beauty 4

Insights in Life Science (ilS) has successfully conducted primary research studies for a variety of life sciences companies, including: big pharma, biotech, start-ups, Tech Transfer Offices,  or even for other consulting organizations

We share three case studies below (slightly modified for confidentiality purposes), which try to illustrate how primary research adds value to our Clients:

Case Study 1:

A start-up biotech company focused in the field of neurology and ready to initiate a Phase II Proof-of-Concept for one of its products, was interested in understanding Key Opinion Leader (KOL) and payer perception of that product (“Product X”). For that purpose, ilS selected the best potential neurologists and payers (across the top 5 EU countries and the USA), prepared an exhaustive interview guide and held in-depth phone interviews with those experts (ilS InterviewsSM)

Insights collected through this primary research allowed our Client to understand expert perception of its Target Product Profile (TPP), and potential Market Access barriers. Those first-hand insights allow the Company to: 1. Revisit the Product Development Plan in an early stage, 2. Be better prepared to negotiate with licensors, 3. Attract investor attention during a potential fund raising phase

Case Study 2:

The Office of Technology Transfer of a Nordic University developing a new treatment in the field of Ophthalmology (“Product Y”), was interested in understanding end user clinical practice, existing unmet clinical needs, and market potential for “Product Y”. For that purpose, ilS conducted a primary research (ilS SurveysSM) with top ophthalmologists across the USA and the top 5 EU countries. With the support of the ilS NetworkSM, ilS identified the best KOLs, prepared an exhaustive online survey and collected expert insights. ilS analyzed the compiled information and shared a report with the Company allowing them to: 1. Decide whether or not to continue further developing “Product Y”, 2. Understand the potential market size for a rare ophthalmologic condition

Case Study 3:

A Global Pharma Company in preparation for the market launch of “Product Z”, needed to gain insights from several qualified oncologists in regards to their decision-making process, their product perception and values. For this purpose, ilS organised an onsite Advisory Board with several oncologists in order to capture their insights and gain consensus (ilS KnowledgeSM). More specifically, ilS created a well-designed moderator guide based on the client provided information, conducted the advisory board, collected the expert insights, analyzed the compiled information and shared a report. The Advisory Board provided sufficient insights to develop an optimal local strategy that could facilitate a smoother launch for “Product Z”

Those three case studies, illustrate how primary research supports life sciences companies to gather key data directly from the target customers, and adds value in regards to: target product profiling, clinical trial design, early market access plan, pricing strategy, licensing strategy, fund raising,…, which allow organizations to become more efficient and accelerate new product launch, which in the end will benefit patient health, which is what really matters.



  1. McQuarrie, Edward (2005), The market research toolbox: a concise guide for beginners (2nd ed.), SAGE, ISBN 978-1-4129-1319-5
  2. Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_research)
  3. Efpia Relationships & Codes: https://www.efpia.eu/relationships-codes/
  4. NIVEA- Case Study, International Market Research (http://bit.ly/2Dk8POh)

Consensus building: The Delphi Method and the Nominal Group Technique

By Aina Pi, M.A., Consultant at Insights in Life Sciences (ilS).


Two of the best known methodologies to achieve consensus of opinion in expert panels or workshops are the Delphi Method and the Nominal Group Technique.

Both consensus techniques, widely used in the field of health, are a mean of collecting experts’ opinions where limited or conflicting evidence exists, and an approach of guiding health decision-making.

In practice, the Delphi method and the nominal group technique are frequently implemented to reach agreement on the classification of diagnostic criteria, the development of clinical guidelines, the identification of health professionals’ needs, as well as to orientate research.

The methodological manual for the development of Clinical Practices guidelines of the Spanish Ministry of Health1 states that these methods are particularly useful specifically if a general agreement on the formulation of recommendations is required: when there is a lack of scientific evidence, existing evidence is disputed, or when there is a little risk-benefit balance.

The Delphi method and the nominal group technique are described below:

Delphi method:

  • A Delphi study works as follow: An open-ended questionnaire about a particular topic is shared for an initial round of independent opinions from isolated respondents. The full range of opinions are summarized and distributed for several rounds of independent opinion and ranking, until a high degree of consensus is reached. Delphi studies usually consist of three to five rounds.
  • The Delphi method minimizes the influence of individuals and maximizes the reliability of results
  • Since the exchange of information takes place via written documentation, no interactive discussion occurs. Nevertheless, the Delphi method can be adjusted for face-to-face meetings
  • The anonymity of the procedure allows to easily raise controversial issues
  • The Delphi method is very useful for international research since there is no need to gather all experts in the same location
  • The Delphi method requires an exhaustive prepared questionnaire, adequate time and high participant motivation since it involves a considerable workload for participants

The following case study, allows to gain a better understanding of how the Delphi method works:

Case study: Rationales behind the choice of administration form with fentanyl: Delphi survey among Danish general practitioners (GPs)2

  • The objective was to describe the rationale behind the choice of fentanyl (often used in the management of chronic pain) administration forms among Danish GPs.
  • An expert panel of 33 GPs collaborated in the study. In the first round, they wrote the main reasons for prescribing and not prescribing fentanyl patches, oral transmucosal systems, and nasal sprays. Their answers were summarized, and in two additional rounds of consultation, they were required to rate the importance of each reason.
  • As a result, a ranking of the most important rationales behind the choice of fentanyl administration form was obtained.

Nominal Group Technique:

  • The nominal group technique methodology works as follow: Participants meet in a session and complete a first round of independent opinions in writing about a particular topic along with its rationale. The results are summarized and distributed to participants. With the support of a moderator, participants expose and discuss their opinions for clarification and evaluation. Several rounds of independent opinions and ranking may be conducted. When the final round of ratings is carried out, the highest total positions are selected as the final decisions. Nominal Groups studies usually consist of four to five rounds
  • The Nominal Groups technique maximizes the compilation of information since all individuals inputs are considered, preventing people from dominating the discussion and encouraging minority views to be shared
  • It is a particularly useful technique since it gathers all experts at the same time and location, being a cost-effective and time efficient method
  • The Nominal Groups method requires an accurate pre-planning from the moderator and experts, and availability from experts since they are assembled together in a single session.


The following case study, allows to gain a better understanding of how the Nominal Group Technique works:

Case study: Identifying areas to improve pain management in hospitalized patients3

  • The objective was to identify the areas to prioritize interventions in the pain management for inpatients in a hospital from the USA
  • A multidisciplinary group of 27 health professionals participated in study.
  • In the first round, 94 ideas were generated. General and context-specific priority ideas were summarized and grouped into several categories. In the following rounds, participants were required to rate the importance of each idea.
  • Consequently, a ranking of the main priorities to improve pain control among hospitalized patients was set.

If you would like to gain further knowledge, you can explore the following case studies:

  • Centre for Disease Control and Prevention. “Gaining Consensus Among Stakeholders Through the Nominal Group Technique” Department of Health and Human Services 7 (2006): 1-3.
  • Davies et al., 2011S. Davies, P.S. Romano, E.M. Schmidt, E. Schultz, J.J. Geppert, K.M. McDonald. “Assessment of a Novel Hybrid Delphi and Nominal Groups Technique to Evaluate Quality Indicators. Health Services Research”, 46 (6pt1) (2011). 2005–2018.
  • Van E, Pitchforth T, Bishop C, Russell E. “Delphi method and nominal group techniques in family planning and reproductive health research”. J Family Planning Reprod Health Care (2006);32:4:249-252.



1Manual metodológico de elaboración de guías de práctica clínica en el Sistema Nacional de Salud. MSPS, 2007. Link

2Jacobsen R, Møldrup C, Christrup L. “Rationales behind the choice of administration form with fentanyl: Delphi survey among Danish general practitioners” Journal Opioid Management (2010);6(4):259-68.

3Peña A, Estrada CA, Soniat D, Taylor B, Burton M. “Nominal group technique: a brainstorming tool for identifying areas to improve pain management in hospitalized patients” J Hosp Med. 2012;7(5):416-20.