Healthcare Professional Market Research in Singapore: Getting Doctors to Tell You What They Actually Think
Pharmaceutical companies spend enormous sums on HCP research. Advisory boards, in-depth interviews, and quantitative surveys. The data comes back tidy. The strategic implications remain unclear.
The problem: doctors in Singapore are trained to be diplomatic. They're accustomed to pharma representatives, aware of commercial agendas, and skilled at giving responses that satisfy without committing. Getting authentic HCP perspectives requires understanding what shapes their stated versus actual views.
According to Singapore Medical Council data, Singapore has approximately 15,000 registered medical practitioners serving a population of 5.9 million. MOH's healthcare manpower statistics show a healthcare system that relies heavily on specialists concentrated in major hospital groups. This small, concentrated professional community shapes how HCPs engage with research.
What We're Observing
The Small World Effect
Singapore's medical community is small. Everyone knows everyone, or knows someone who knows. HCPs are cautious about expressing views that might circulate back to colleagues, hospital leadership, or regulatory bodies.
In research settings, this manifests as careful hedging. "Some colleagues might think..." instead of "I think..." Opinions attributed to unnamed others rather than owned personally.
The Pharma-Aware Filter
Singapore HCPs interact with pharmaceutical representatives constantly. They've developed sophisticated filters for commercial engagement. When they recognize research as pharma-sponsored, responses calibrate accordingly.
The calibration works both ways: some HCPs provide artificially positive feedback (relationship management), while others become artificially skeptical (demonstrating they can't be bought). Neither represents authentic clinical judgment.
The Institutional Loyalty Layer
Many Singapore HCPs work within the public healthcare system—SingHealth, National Healthcare Group, National University Health System. Institutional affiliation shapes how they discuss treatment options, especially when comparisons involve drugs or protocols their institution has or hasn't adopted.
A doctor at a hospital that has championed Drug A will find it professionally awkward to express preference for Drug B, regardless of personal clinical opinion.
The KOL Phenomenon
In a small market, a handful of Key Opinion Leaders (KOLs) shape treatment consensus. These physicians speak at conferences, lead advisory boards, and influence guidelines. Other HCPs often echo KOL positions—not because they independently agree, but because deviation feels professionally risky.
Research that captures KOL views mistakes it for consensus. Research that captures echoes of KOL views mistakes it for independent validation.
HCP Segments by Research Engagement
The Experienced Navigators (25-30%) Have participated in numerous pharma-sponsored studies. Know the game. Provide calibrated responses that satisfy sponsors without revealing too much. Skilled at appearing helpful while remaining non-committal.
The Authentic Engagers (15-20%) Genuinely interested in influencing drug development and clinical practice. Will share honest views when trust is established. Rare and valuable—building relationship with this segment matters.
The Skeptical Participants (25-30%) Participate for honoraria or professional obligation but maintain guard throughout. Suspect commercial motivation behind every question. Hard to reach authentically.
The Institutional Representatives (20-25%) Speak as representatives of their institution rather than as individual clinicians. Views align closely with hospital protocols and leadership positions. Personal opinion is submerged.
Research Framework: HCP Response Decoder
What HCPs Say vs. What They Mean
| What They Say | What It Often Means | How to Probe Deeper |
|---|---|---|
| "It depends on the patient" | I don't want to commit to a position | "Walk me through your last three cases where this came up" |
| "The data looks promising" | I'm being polite; I have reservations | "What would make you more confident?" |
| "Some colleagues might disagree" | I disagree but won't say it directly | "What would their concerns be?" |
| "We follow institutional guidelines" | My hands are tied; personal view differs | "If guidelines changed, what would you do?" |
| "I'd need to see more evidence" | I'm skeptical and don't expect evidence to convince me | "What specific evidence would move your practice?" |
Tool: Research Design Principles for HCP Studies
What Improves vs. Undermines HCP Research Quality
| Improves Quality | Undermines Quality |
|---|---|
| Moderator with clinical credibility or health communications background | Generic market research moderator unfamiliar with medical terminology |
| Case-based discussion ("walk me through a recent patient") | Abstract hypotheticals ("what would you do if...") |
| Anonymity assurances that are credible and specific | Standard confidentiality statements HCPs have heard before |
| Individual interviews for sensitive topics | Group discussions where hierarchy or institutional affiliation creates pressure |
| Mixing HCPs from different hospital groups | Groups from single institution (institutional view dominates) |
| Third-party research branding (not obviously pharma-sponsored) | Branded pharma research where sponsor is obvious |
What Moves HCP Behavior
Understanding what actually changes prescribing behavior matters more than what HCPs say influences them:
What they say influences them:
Clinical trial data
Treatment guidelines
Patient outcomes
What actually influences them:
What KOLs at their institution are doing
Ease of access (formulary status, approval processes)
Personal experience with early patients
What peers at similar institutions have adopted
Rep relationships and information support
Patient affordability (affects compliance, which affects outcomes)
The gap between stated and actual influences is where HCP research often misleads.
Questions Worth Exploring
For pharmaceutical brands: Is your advisory board giving you authentic insight or sophisticated consensus? How would you know the difference?
For medical device companies: Are HCPs evaluating your product's clinical merit or its fit with institutional procurement processes?
For health systems: What do your physicians actually think about treatment pathways you've adopted? Do you know?
HCP research in Singapore requires navigating a small professional community where relationships, institutions, and hierarchy shape what can be said. Standard approaches produce standard (and often misleading) data.
At Singapore Insights, we design HCP research that accounts for the professional and cultural filters that shape physician responses. If you need to understand what Singapore's healthcare professionals actually think, let us have a conversation. You can also write to our Research Lead, Felicia at felicia@assembled.sg or give us a call at +65 8118 1048.
