Challenges of Key Performance Indicators and Metrics for Measuring Medical Science Liaison Performance: Insights from a Global Survey.

BACKGROUND

Medical Science Liaisons (MSLs) serve a vital role in facilitating the exchange of scientific knowledge between pharmaceutical companies and health care professionals (HCPs), including pharmacists, ensuring the dissemination of accurate, evidence-based information to support clinical decision-making. Evaluating MSL performance is critical for demonstrating their value, yet defining appropriate key performance indicators (KPIs) remains challenging due to the combination of scientific engagement, relationship-building, and other activities that are difficult to measure.

OBJECTIVE

This study examines the current and perceived ideal use of quantitative and qualitative metrics for MSL performance evaluation, the difficulties in measuring MSL impact, and the perceived effectiveness of existing KPIs.

METHODS

A global survey of 1023 medical affairs professionals across 63 countries was conducted, gathering data on which KPIs are currently used versus which should be used, the preferred weighting of qualitative vs. quantitative metrics, and opinions on measurement difficulty and KPI effectiveness.

RESULTS

The results reveal a strong preference for qualitative metrics (52%) over quantitative metrics (7%), though most organizations primarily use activity-based metrics such as the number of key opinion leader (KOL) engagements (92%). Despite these practices, many respondents believe that MSL KPIs should focus more on impact-based qualitative metrics, such as the quality of KOL/HCP relationships and/or engagements (70%) and the quality of actionable insights gathered (67%). Furthermore, 67% of participants reported it is "difficult" or "very difficult" to measure MSL performance accurately, and only 3% revealed current KPIs and metrics used to measure MSL performance are "very effective". These findings highlight a disconnect between the way MSLs are evaluated and the value they provide.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the need for a balanced KPI framework that integrates both qualitative and quantitative measures. A more refined performance evaluation system (incorporating stakeholder feedback, insight quality, and strategic impact) can ensure fair assessments and drive MSL effectiveness.