Resources
Insights
Report · Why 60% of drug launches fail
Customer stories
Research studies
Book a demo
5 markets live. 100+ dermatologists enrolled. One validated, KPI'd patient journey — across DE, US, UK, JP, and CA. This is how a top-10 global pharma replaced internal hypothesis with real-world patient evidence, and built a digital companion the field could actually plan against.
"What patients said they needed in Berlin is shaping what patients see in Tokyo."
What this partnership produced — and the scale it reached.
A top-10 global pharma set out to build a digital patient support program in dermatology. The product was clear. The evidence base wasn't.
The team had a patient journey. Well-constructed — built on clinical expertise, internal conviction, and genuine disease understanding. What it lacked was signal from actual patients. Not anecdotes from advisory boards. Not curated feedback from managed patient programmes. Quantitative, real-world data from people living with the condition — collected at scale, with no commercial filter on what they were willing to say.
That distinction matters. A patient journey built on internal conviction is a starting point for alignment. It is not a foundation for a digital companion whose entire value proposition is patient credibility.
The engagement began as a pilot in Germany. It is now live across five markets — and feeding the programme's content pipeline directly.
We have been trying to bridge this gap of patient voices for 2 years and nobody could show it to us this clearly.
The engagement followed a deliberate sequence — prove the method in one market before expanding to the next. Each phase produced an artifact the team could plan against. Each step fed the one after it.
A single market was selected to pressure-test the approach before any expansion. The goal was not just to gather data — it was to establish whether mama health's patient community and methodology could meaningfully challenge, or confirm, an internal patient journey hypothesis. The answer came quickly.
The engagement opened in one market with a clear brief: prove the model before any geographic expansion. The structure was designed so success in market one justified scaling — and failure would be cheap. Germany was selected as the pilot. The methodology was locked. The work began.
The team brought their internal hypotheses about how patients in the indication move through diagnosis, treatment initiation, daily management, and switching decisions. mama health pressure-tested each one against real-world quantitative data drawn from the patient community. Some assumptions held. Others did not. Where evidence and assumption diverged, the journey was rewritten.
A patient journey is only useful if people inside the organisation act on it. The second phase moved findings from a research output to an operational instrument — KPI'd at every stage, accessible across functions, and visible to stakeholders who would not otherwise have engaged with the underlying data.
The qualitative patient journey narrative was transformed into an operational instrument. KPIs were placed throughout — so a commercial lead, a medical director, or a marketing manager could point to a moment in the patient experience and see what was actually happening there. In numbers. From patients.
Evidence buried in a report rarely changes a product roadmap. AI-generated video content was produced to carry the findings beyond the immediate project team — making the patient voice visible to commercial, medical, and marketing stakeholders across the organisation. The journey became a story people wanted to watch, not a slide deck they had to read.
With the pilot validated, the engagement expanded into four additional markets — and in parallel, insight began flowing directly into the digital companion's content pipeline. One method, multiple markets, a single destination: educational material built on patient voice rather than internal assumption.
Following the pilot, the engagement extended into the United States, United Kingdom, Japan, and Canada. Each market feeds patient voice back into the same operational instrument established in Germany — one methodology, multiple geographies, a single unified patient journey at the centre.
Patient voice data flows directly into the digital companion's content pipeline. What patients said they needed in market one is shaping what patients see in subsequent markets. The companion is no longer built on what the internal team believes — it's built on what patients told us, in real time, across five countries.
In parallel with the patient work, an e-consent initiative was run through the partner's platform — engaging hundreds of dermatologists to support disease awareness at the point of care. mama health data was integrated to support the effort, extending the engagement from the patient side of the equation to the HCP side, and bridging the gap between patient voice and clinical engagement.
What replaced internal assumption — in numbers, not narrative.
Germany first, then the US, UK, Japan, and Canada. The existing patient journey hypothesis was pressure-tested against quantitative patient data in every market. What held was validated. What diverged was rewritten. The result: a single, KPI'd instrument — numbers at every stage — that five commercial markets are now planning against. Not a research document. An operational asset.
What patients in Berlin said they needed is shaping what patients in Tokyo see. Insight from each new market flows directly into the digital companion's content pipeline — in real time, not in quarterly research cycles. The programme no longer relies on internal assumption. It gets sharper with every geography added, and the content reflects what patients actually said, not what the team believed they needed.
A parallel e-consent initiative — run through the partner's own platform — enrolled over 100 dermatologists in a disease awareness programme during the same engagement window. The same patient evidence shaping the digital companion now shapes how the partner shows up at the point of care. One engagement. Two audiences. One data source. The gap between patient support and clinical engagement is narrower because of it.