Part of a series from the PM Society Patient Engagement Interest Group (PEIG)
Imagine three people with the same condition receiving information about their treatment. One is newly diagnosed and feeling overwhelmed, another has spent years confidently seeking information to self-manage, while a third needs printed material and additional accessibility support. The messages shared may be the same, but their needs are anything but.
While developing healthcare communications for a broad audience can improve efficiency, it can also overlook the many factors that shape how people receive, understand, and act on information.
In this article, we’ll consider this through the lens of two key themes:
An information gap doesn’t always look like confusion. It may look like hesitation, disengagement, uncertainty, or lack of action. It might be the person who leaves an appointment with unanswered questions, the study participant who disengages, or the person who delays seeking support due to uncertainty.
Effective patient communications are about more than just shorter sentences, clear language, or providing less content. While clarity is essential for readability and accessibility, oversimplification can create new barriers and reduce reliability if essential context is lost.
The consequences of getting it wrong
People need to understand not only what information means, but also why it matters to them, how it relates to their own circumstances, and what actions they can take as a result.
If people cannot recognise themselves in the information they receive, they may struggle to see its relevance, trust its value, or apply it to their own situation. This can make it more difficult to engage with care, make informed decisions, or confidently navigate their health journey. This can influence:
Trust and relationships with healthcare providers and pharma.
Confidence to ask questions, express concerns, or discuss personal values and preferences.
Overall experiences of care and involvement in decision-making.
Whether patients are driven to search for more easily digestible or relatable information from less accurate and trustworthy sources
Adherence to treatment plans, support programmes, or study requirements.
Effective communication isn't just about what we say, but how, when, and in what context we say it
Each person living with a condition brings their own unique experiences, concerns, care history, support systems, beliefs, and circumstances. These factors all shape what the person needs, and when they need it.
When planning person-centric communications, it is worth considering:
• Who is the audience for this specific piece of content?
• What decisions do the audience need to make right now? What will come later?
• Could the audience feel anxious, confident, or in need of reassurance?
• What emotional or practical barriers might the audience be facing right now?
• Can it be tailored or layered for the individual – give them the option to delve deeper
Engaging people with lived experiences of a condition to develop the concept and content of person-centred communications is an important starting point. This approach can also challenge assumptions and identify which needs, priorities, and differences matter most in practice.
Remember, no individual can represent everyone. Try to engage with people who can represent communities, rather than only their personal experience and preferences.
Patient-centricity starts long before content development
Tailored communication is not simply about changing words for different audiences. It starts with understanding the people the content is intended to support, and the situations they are navigating.
Starting a project with insight gathering and analysis can help uncover the emotional, practical, and behavioural factors that influence how people engage with healthcare information. Useful insights may come from:
Literature and desk research.
Social listening and community insights.
Patient experience research.
Collaboration with patient advocacy groups.
Co-creation with people with lived experiences (engaging people at the concept stage to influence objectives, priorities, and format rather than seeking feedback only once a draft has been developed).
These approaches can help ensure content is grounded in real needs rather than assumptions, and that communications are shaped around the people they are designed to support.
So, should we still be designing communications for an “average patient”?
Before development begins pause and ask: who needs this information, what do they need from it at this point in their journey, and what might help or prevent them from acting on it? The goal is not simply to make information easier to read, but easier for people to understand, relate to and act on.