Medical Affairs

Case Study: Driving Stronger KOL Engagement

By Dr Shabbir Nagpurwala · September 10, 2025
← All insights

Key opinion leader (KOL) engagement fails quietly. Advisory boards happen, honoraria are paid, slide decks are presented, and six months later nobody can point to a decision the input changed. This anonymized case study describes how one oncology focused client rebuilt its KOL engagement around a simple test: every interaction must produce insight someone acts on.

The starting point

The client, a mid sized company preparing an oncology asset for launch in India and the Gulf, had the familiar symptoms. Its KOL list was really a speaker list, weighted toward availability rather than scientific influence. Advisory boards ran as one way presentations with a question slide at the end. Meeting reports summarized what the company presented rather than what the experts said. Field medical follow-up was ad hoc, so the same experts were asked the same questions by different functions.

What we changed

1. Mapping before inviting

We rebuilt the expert map from evidence: publication and citation activity in the indication, guideline committee membership, trial leadership, and regional treatment patterns. The result was a tiered engagement plan that separated scientific advisors, whose input shapes strategy, from educational speakers, whose role is dissemination. Roughly a third of the legacy list moved off the advisory tier entirely, and several regionally influential clinicians who had never been engaged moved on.

2. Advisory boards designed backwards

Each advisory board started from the decisions it needed to inform: unresolved questions in the evidence plan, positioning uncertainties, and data gaps the development team could still address. Those questions became a discussion guide, not a slide deck. Presentations were cut to short framing segments, under a third of total meeting time, and every session was built around structured discussion with a trained moderator, pre-circulated pre-work, and anonymous polling to surface disagreement that senior voices might otherwise flatten.

3. Pre-work that respects expert time

Advisors received a concise briefing document and three focused questions two weeks ahead, with their written responses synthesized before the meeting. This changed the meeting itself: instead of hearing first reactions, the group spent its time on the points where written responses disagreed, which is where the useful insight lives.

4. Insight synthesis, not minutes

Reports were rebuilt around insight statements: what the experts said, what it means for the asset, and which function owns the response. Each insight was tagged to a strategic question and tracked to resolution. Verbatim transcription stayed in an appendix for compliance, but the working document fit on a few pages and was read by people who make decisions.

5. Compliant by design

Every engagement ran on a documented needs assessment, fair market value compensation, and a clear separation between scientific exchange and promotion, so medical affairs could defend the program in any audit without slowing it down.

What changed in practice

Measuring engagement without gaming it

The client's earlier metrics counted activity: meetings held, experts met, slides presented. Activity metrics reward exactly the behavior that made the program hollow. The rebuilt program measured four things instead. Insight yield: the number of insight statements per engagement that led to a documented action. Coverage: the share of tier one experts engaged on the current scientific questions within the cycle, not ever. Advisor experience: a short structured pulse after each board, because experts who feel used poorly stop preparing. And time to action: how long an insight waited before an owner responded to it. None of these is hard to collect, and together they make quality visible without inviting anyone to inflate meeting counts.

Running boards across India and the Gulf

Because the program spanned India and Gulf markets, format mattered. Fully virtual boards raised attendance for busy clinicians but flattened discussion, so the working pattern became hybrid: shorter virtual sessions for focused questions with written pre-work carrying more weight, and one in person board per year for the strategic agenda, scheduled adjacent to a regional congress the advisors already attended. Moderation was adapted for the setting, with the moderator explicitly drawing out written disagreements in virtual sessions where interruption dynamics otherwise let one or two voices dominate. Honoraria and contracting followed fair market value benchmarks per market, documented centrally so the same expert engaged in two markets was treated consistently.

What this case says about KOL engagement generally

None of the individual tactics here is exotic. The difference was treating expert engagement as an evidence activity with inputs, outputs, and owners, rather than a relationship activity measured by meetings held. Experts respond to being used well: the scarcest resource in any therapy area is senior clinician attention, and programs that visibly convert that attention into decisions earn more of it.

Working with EvySaif on advisory programs

EvySaif designs and delivers advisory boards end to end: expert mapping, discussion guides, briefing materials, moderation support, and insight reports that people act on, all built to compliant scientific exchange standards. See our advisory board support services or talk to us about your next engagement program.

Need this level of rigor on your next deliverable?

Book a Consultation