01 Facts & context
The communication challenge for science-based companies: balancing professional accuracy and public understanding
As a research-based pharmaceutical and health company, MSD's public pages simultaneously present research priorities and health literacy topics, which inherently suggests a business-level contradiction: the professional nature of scientific content and the public's comprehension ability have a natural gap. The research page needs to convey frontier directions, while the health literacy discussion acknowledges that people face difficulties in understanding and using health information. The juxtaposition of the two pages indicates that the company recognizes that professional value depends not only on the research itself, but also on whether the public can accurately understand related materials.
For any pharmaceutical or health institution, this contradiction is hard to avoid. Drug instructions, clinical data, and disease education materials are often full of jargon, while patients and caregivers are not professionals. If communication fails, the consequences range from misunderstanding medication instructions to delaying medical consultation. MSD's incorporation of comprehensibility into brand experience implies that it treats communication as part of the product experience, not as an afterthought. However, GSP analysis emphasizes that this incorporation is only a starting point; its actual effectiveness depends on whether content is truly understood by target users, which requires independent verification.
From the source materials, MSD does not claim that its communication methods have led to specific health outcome improvements, nor does it provide user comprehension rate data. Therefore, the value of this case lies in demonstrating a systematic approach, not in proving effectiveness. Adopters should focus on its methodological framework, rather than viewing it as a success model.
Historical data show why information needs different levels of support
US 2003 NAAL health-literacy assessment; historical population baseline, not MSD users or a current estimate
Different literacy levels support testing materials with varied readers, beyond readability scores alone. Percentages follow the rounded official chart.
- [1] 2003 US adult health literacy assessment results ↗Overall chart: percentage of adults by health-literacy level · 2006 · Accessed
02 GSP analysis
Beneath the surface of language simplification lies a repositioning of the brand-user relationship
GSP analysis suggests that MSD's communication standards are not merely copywriting revisions but a redefinition of the information contract between the brand and users. For adopters, a useful question to test is whether communication gaps remain when reviews confirm technical accuracy but do not test reader understanding. In contrast, MSD's public glossary, cross-touchpoint standards, and patient labeling imply an attempt to make 'user comprehension' one of the communication goals. This changes the composition of brand experience: users encounter not only the product but also the explanatory system surrounding it.
The deep drivers of this shift may stem from the market environment: patient empowerment trends, the proliferation of digital health information, and regulatory advocacy for patient-friendliness. However, GSP analysis cautions that a company's choice of this direction may not be purely user-centric; it could also be driven by reducing consultation costs, minimizing misunderstanding complaints, or enhancing brand image. Different drivers lead to different depths of execution. If the goal is merely image, standards may remain superficial; if the goal is to actually reduce communication gaps, resources must be invested in user testing and content iteration.
For adopters, the key is not to imitate MSD's glossary but to clarify their own communication goals: is it to make users 'feel it's easy to understand' or to 'truly understand'? The former can be achieved through design; the latter requires behavioral verification. MSD's case offers an organizational path, but each company must decide the weight of comprehensibility in brand experience based on its own product uncertainty, user characteristics, and resource availability.
03 GSP analysis
Key steps for value creation: from information dissemination to users' accurate follow-up questions
In pharmaceutical and health communication, value is not generated at the moment information is published, but when users take correct actions or ask accurate follow-up questions based on that information. MSD's communication system covers labels, packaging instructions, disease education, clinical materials, and more. The common task of these materials is to help users complete specific reading tasks: understanding how to take medication, when to seek medical attention, and what side effects may occur. GSP analysis suggests that true value lies in whether users can extract key information from materials and translate it into correct behavior.
Taking patient labeling as an example, a team can turn verified formal product information into readable wording and test whether readers can find, understand, and accurately restate the key information; this reading outcome should be evaluated separately from actual medication-taking behavior. However, there are multiple intermediate steps: Do users notice the label? Can they understand the terminology? Can they grasp key points even in an anxious state? These steps determine whether value is realized. MSD's attention to user feedback implies an awareness of the need to obtain signals from the user side, rather than relying solely on internal standards. However, the source materials do not provide details on the design or results of feedback mechanisms, so their effectiveness cannot be confirmed.
For adopters, an actionable approach is to define clear 'comprehension tasks' for each material, such as 'users can find the maximum daily dose within a short time.' Then, user testing can measure completion rates. If completion rates are low, content should be iterated. This task-oriented approach is more measurable than a vague 'improve readability' and closer to real usage scenarios. However, it should be noted that test environments differ from actual use, and results must be interpreted cautiously.
04 GSP analysis
How information and responsibility flow: analysis of handoff points from R&D to patient touchpoints
MSD's communication system involves multiple roles: researchers generate scientific content, medical teams review accuracy, communication teams simplify language, regulatory teams ensure compliance, and ultimately patients or physicians interact with the material. GSP analysis suggests that the most critical handoff point in this chain is the conversion from 'scientific content' to 'plain language content.' The source materials mention company-wide communication standards, which may aim to reduce information loss during conversion, but standards alone cannot guarantee smooth handoffs.
A specific handoff point: researchers write clinical data and hand it to the medical communication team to create patient education materials. At this point, researchers focus on statistical significance, while patients care about 'what should I do.' If the handoff only transfers data without usage context, simplification may be distorted. MSD's glossary may help different teams use consistent terminology, but it cannot solve the problem of missing context. Therefore, adopters need to clarify responsibilities at each handoff point: who ensures that the simplified version does not alter the original meaning? Who verifies user comprehension?
Another handoff point is the feedback loop: how do user feedback signals return to the content update process? The source materials mention attention to feedback but do not explain how feedback is collected, analyzed, and triggers modifications. GSP analysis suggests that without a closed loop, feedback is merely data collection. Adopters should design explicit feedback mechanisms, such as periodic user testing, complaint analysis, or patient consultation records, and link results to content versions. Otherwise, handoff points may become information breakpoints rather than quality improvement opportunities.
Test plain-language standards through real reading tasks
Proposed material-testing path informed by published communication practices
- 01
Define the reading task
Identify the key information readers need
- 02
Structure the material
Explain with consistent terms, hierarchy and visuals
- 03
Observe understanding
Ask readers to explain back and log misunderstandings
- 04
Revise and track
Retest changes and retain revision evidence
Comprehension testing asks whether readers can find, explain and use information. Version control preserves revisions across touchpoints.
- [1] MSD health-literacy communication practices ↗How we’re making medical information easier to understand · 2024-12-20 · Accessed
05 GSP analysis
Investment and trade-offs: resource costs of communication standardization and alternative approaches
Establishing a company-wide plain language standard is not cost-free. For companies adopting a similar approach, GSP recommends evaluating the following cost items: staff time for glossary maintenance, cross-departmental coordination time, the workload for rewriting and reviewing materials, and the expense of conducting user tests. The opportunity cost of these investments is other potential brand-building activities, such as digital tool development or patient support programs. For companies with limited resources, full-scale standardization may not be realistic; they need to prioritize high-touch materials.
One alternative is to focus on specific high-uncertainty materials, such as medication instructions and emergency guidance, rather than rolling out across the board. Another is a tiered strategy: retaining technical language for professional users and providing simplified versions for the public. MSD's case shows company-wide standards, but it does not disclose cost-effectiveness. GSP analysis emphasizes that adopters should not assume investment necessarily brings returns; they should choose scope based on their own user pain points and resource constraints.
Economic evaluation should also consider long-term maintenance costs. Terminology evolves with medical advances, standards require periodic revision, and feedback mechanisms need continuous operation. If a company cannot commit to long-term investment, standardization may become a one-off project with diminishing effects over time. Therefore, decision-makers need to assess their organizational capabilities, not just look at MSD's framework. A pragmatic starting point is to pilot with one disease or one product line, measure improvements in user comprehension, and then expand.
06 GSP analysis
Smoother reading and more accurate understanding are different outcomes
When analyzing the comprehensibility of health information, first distinguish between reading experience and comprehension outcomes. A document that looks simpler may be due to layout improvements, or it may simply have removed conditions that are difficult but necessary for readers. Readers being willing to continue reading does not mean they can accurately identify the scope of application or know when to seek professional help. For adopters, the more valuable question is: while retaining the same necessary information, does the new expression enable target users to more accurately complete reading tasks that were previously error-prone?
Audience composition can also change results. Those familiar with the disease, with higher education, or with family assistance may find tests easier; if the revised material happens to be evaluated by such people, improvements cannot be fully attributed to the copy. Comparisons should preserve similar usage contexts as much as possible, and record language background, prior knowledge, and whether prompts were given. Not all comprehension barriers should be solved by simplifying terminology: some stem from information placement, some from inconsistencies between materials, and others require further professional communication; addressing each separately avoids misattribution.
For adopting companies, first check whether the same content appears with contradictory explanations across different touchpoints, then test specific modifications. If locating information is faster but recall remains inaccurate, next examine concept explanations; if recall is accurate but users do not know whom to ask next, check service entry points. A decline in inquiries also needs cautious interpretation, as it could mean problems are solved or users have given up asking. Observing reading tests alongside actual inquiry topics makes it easier to determine where the communication system needs further investment.
07 Suggested actions
Start with a verifiable reading task
Suppose a pharmaceutical company plans to improve an existing patient education material. It can first select a section with stable content and clear usage scenarios as a pilot. Professional reviewers confirm the facts, conditions, and cautions that must be retained, and editors then propose different presentation approaches. The test task could be to find the target audience of the material, identify the professional to contact when in doubt, or explain the conditions included in a certain caution. The task itself should be designed around information comprehension, and must not let participants make their own treatment decisions or turn the test into a product promotion.
During testing, participants can first browse the material as they normally would, and then be asked to explain the information they found in their own words. Observers note pauses, re-reading, misconceptions, and where they sought help, without guiding answers during the process. The same wording may pose different barriers to people with different language backgrounds or reading habits, so results should retain the context of use rather than being merged into a single average score. If problems are found, first determine whether they are caused by terminology, sequence, visual hierarchy, or missing content, and then make targeted changes, avoiding the tendency to compress text based on personal preference.
After completing small-scale revisions, the team should also check whether the new version is consistent with packaging, websites, and other supporting materials, and keep records of the rationale for changes. Better performance on reading tasks can support further validation of that expression, but it cannot directly prove improvements in actual medication behavior or health outcomes. If the new version only works when prompts are given, further revision is needed; if it is accurately interpreted across different usage contexts, it is suitable to expand the scope of validation. This sequence links communication efforts to observable problems and makes it easier to determine which specific change had an effect in subsequent feedback.
08 Suggested actions
Plain language requires clear professional review authority and version responsibility
Adopters can clearly assign content ownership, professional review authority, and expression modification rights separately. Business or research teams provide the evidence and conditions of use, professional reviewers judge whether the rewrite preserves the original meaning, editorial teams handle readability, and user testing provides comprehension feedback. Editors should not independently change professional judgments, and professional reviewers should not merely confirm terminology while ignoring the actual problems users encounter. Key handover materials should include the original evidence, the target reading task, and the qualifying conditions that must be retained, so that those taking over know what can be adjusted and what changes require re-confirmation.
Version management should be organized around the reasons for information changes, not just publication dates. If scientific evidence, product labeling, or usage scenarios are updated, responsible personnel need to check which related materials are affected and then arrange consistent revisions. A glossary can support consistent expression but cannot replace case-by-case judgment, because the same term may require different explanations in different contexts. For important changes affecting comprehension, decisions, reviewers, and applicable versions should be recorded; this way, when questions arise later, it is possible to trace specific content rather than just knowing that a department participated in review.
Feedback handling should also have clear recipients and closure criteria. Feedback involving factual errors should be routed to professional review; issues related to difficulty in finding information or ambiguous wording should be addressed with user task analysis; individual diagnosis or treatment questions outside the material should be directed to appropriate professional services. Teams can prioritize revisions based on whether the problem recurs, which materials are affected, and whether it hinders key understanding. Only when changes are reviewed, related versions are updated, and the original issue is re-checked can feedback be considered resolved; merely collecting opinions is not evidence of an effective communication system.
09 Suggested actions
Measurement and boundaries: how to determine whether comprehensibility investments are worth continuing
Measuring the effectiveness of comprehensibility investments hinges on selecting the right denominator and observation period. GSP analysis suggests that outcome metrics should not be material volume or page views, but rather changes in user behavior. For example, for medication guidance, the denominator could be all patients with a prescription, and the numerator the number who correctly follow the medication regimen. However, obtaining such data requires cooperation from healthcare systems and is costly. An alternative is to use proxy indicators, such as a decrease in the proportion of consultation calls about dosage and administration, or an improvement in task completion rates in user tests.
The observation period must be long enough to rule out random fluctuations. It is recommended to cover at least one complete medication cycle, e.g., three months for chronic disease medication and two weeks for acute disease medication. Leading signals include a reduction in specific confusion points from user test feedback; outcome signals are changes in misuse events or complaints. Adopters should distinguish between the two: leading signals are used for content iteration, while outcome signals are used for overall value assessment.
Conditions for expansion, pause, or adjustment should be pre-set. If the pilot product shows no significant change in misuse rates within the predetermined period, and user tests do not show improved comprehension, then pause and analyze the causes: is it a material issue, a channel issue, or a target user selection bias? If effective, consider expanding to other products, but note that different therapeutic areas have varying terminology complexity. Applicability boundaries are also important: comprehensibility standards do not apply to all content; for example, professional clinical reports still require technical language. GSP analysis emphasizes that measurement should be based on a company's own data, not on the assumption that MSD has proven its methods effective.
THE EVIDENCE
Grounding the argument in evidence.
What the source reports
MSD's official research focus page describes its drug and vaccine research directions, without mentioning specific product efficacy or health outcome improvements.
GSP analysis suggests that this page merely indicates the company's public research priorities and cannot serve as evidence of communication strategy effectiveness; comprehensibility of content requires independent evaluation.
What the source reports
MSD publicly presents its health literacy topic, mentioning a plain language glossary, company-wide communication standards, patient labeling, packaging instructions, disease education, clinical materials, graphics and digital resources, and attention to user feedback.
GSP analysis suggests that these arrangements indicate the company is systematizing comprehensibility, but actual effectiveness must be verified through user testing and feedback mechanisms; the existence of these materials does not imply improved comprehension or trust.
DECISION POINTS
From understanding to testable action.
Selecting the pilot product scope
Adopters should choose a product with high uncertainty or high consultation volume as a pilot, concentrate resources on designing plain language materials, rather than rolling out across the board.
Observe changes in consultation types and misuse rate trends for the pilot product; if no improvement within the preset period, adjust content or testing methods.
Establishing a cross-functional review team
Form a team comprising medical, regulatory, communication, and patient representatives to clarify decision-making authority for terminology simplification and escalation paths for disputes.
Observe the team's decision speed and material update frequency; if disputes remain unresolved or updates lag, optimize processes or delegation.
Designing a user feedback loop
Establish a systematic mechanism for collecting user feedback, such as periodic reading tests or analysis of consultation records, and link results to content versions.
Observe whether feedback triggers material revisions and whether user comprehension improves after revisions; if feedback is ignored, the loop is ineffective.
QUESTIONS TO EXPLORE
What still needs to be established?
- How exactly is MSD's plain language standard developed and maintained? Its update frequency and governance mechanisms are not described in public materials.
- What is the specific design of the user feedback mechanism? How feedback is collected, analyzed, and translated into content improvements is not detailed in the materials.
CONTINUE THE RESEARCH
Explore your question further.
Request the full research report and discuss your market, brand questions and business context with GSP.
Request the full research report ↗