Local Evidence Priorities

Are your local evidence investments addressing the most important gaps?

Medical Affairs teams identify important evidence needs through clinical practice, patient experience, payer requirements and local healthcare priorities. Yet leaders may lack a consistent basis for deciding which gaps warrant investment, which can be addressed through existing or planned evidence, and which should wait.

In organisations where evidence needs do not reliably translate into agreed priorities and funded plans, leaders often see familiar patterns:

Teams propose studies before agreeing on which evidence gaps matter most or what decisions the findings need to inform.

Local clinical and payer needs are captured but reach global planning or investment discussions too late to shape the evidence plan.

Medical Affairs, Evidence and Market Access teams work from different views of the gaps, priorities or evidence already available.

Proposals compete for limited resources without a shared basis for comparing relevance, urgency, feasibility and the consequences of leaving a gap unresolved.

Approval routes and decision rights are unclear, leaving teams uncertain about who can prioritise, fund, defer or stop a proposal.

These patterns can reflect an isolated planning or implementation problem. They can also indicate deeper friction in how local insight informs evidence priorities, how those priorities connect with global plans, and how investment decisions are made.