By Tara Beers Gibson, PhD, VP, Medical Strategy & Education, Hematology/Oncology, Medlive
Key Takeaways
- Around 85% of clinicians name their medical society or association among their three most trusted sources of clinical information.
- Asking about both interest and confidence reveals education gaps that interest alone misses.
- Confidence is lowest for the newest treatment modalities, led by gene-directed therapy.
- 94 of 100 rare-disease respondents want education on at least one AI application, with priorities that vary by specialty.
Planning Clinician Education
Planning clinician education has always involved judgment calls under uncertainty. Who do clinicians trust most for clinical information? Where is their confidence lowest? What is the best way to uncover educational gaps? These questions have never been easy to answer, and the pace of therapeutic and technological changes has added variables that make the answers less clear.
Medlive, together with our partners at the Association of American Cancer Institutes (AACI), the National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD), and the Large Urology Group Practice Association (LUGPA), built four surveys that put those questions to specialists directly.
The datasets span oncology, rare diseases in oncology and neurology, and urology, and where they agree, they say something useful for any Medical Affairs team in the middle of a 2027 planning cycle.
Clinicians place their trust in medical societies and associations
Medical societies and associations play a central role in creating and delivering education and information that is relevant, timely, and unbiased for healthcare professionals. When we asked clinicians which sources they trust most for clinical information, around 85% named their medical society or association, through its channels of journals and conferences, and the peers they connect with in these groups among their three most trusted resources.
Takeaway: Clinicians and specialists are seeking education from their societies and associations, and these organizations have earned their place as a credible source. The society and association partnership has always been the educational model for Medlive to deliver trusted content that helps HCPs help their patients.
How to pinpoint specialists’ education priorities: evaluate both interest and confidence to uncover educational gaps
The primary goal of the surveys was to uncover educational gaps through a deliberate sequence of questions. We asked about interest and confidence separately to determine whether the educational topics clinicians most wanted aligned with what they felt least confident discussing with patients: they were not.
In one survey, more than 80% of respondents were interested in every topic we listed, which tells you very little about where to start. Asking how confident they were about those same topics produced a clear ranking that differed from what they were most interested in learning.
The rare oncology survey results show why that matters. About half the respondents were not confident they would recognize a rare cancer in practice. When we looked at what those same physicians wanted to learn, their interest in diagnosis education was consistent with that of their more confident peers, 40% against 44%, and their interest in emerging therapies was lower, 40% against 60%.
It’s hard to raise your hand for training on a gap you haven’t seen up close. Finding those needs, and bringing education to them, is our job as educators, and it becomes seamless alongside the trusted medical society or association for your specialty. Medical societies and associations know their members: who’s in the audience, what’s coming up at the annual meeting, what’s showing up in referral patterns. They know which faculty those members listen to. That context is what turns survey answers into education aimed at the right gaps.
“Clinicians tell us clearly what interests them. Asking about confidence as well, and understanding what societies and associations know about their members, shows us where education will help most.”
Takeaway: Asking clinicians both what they want to learn and where they feel least confident reveals the gaps that matter. Medical societies and associations then provide the context to decide which gaps to close first and the reach to get that education to the clinicians who need it most.
Where confidence is lowest: the newest treatment modalities
Drilling into specific therapy classes clinicians feel least equipped to discuss with patients, the newest treatment modalities were named most often. Gene-directed therapy led in three of the four audiences, at 67% in urology, 66% in rare neurology, and 64% in rare oncology. Among general oncologists, oncolytic viral therapy led at 80%. This pattern held across all four audiences: the newest classes were the ones cited most. These therapies reached the clinic most recently, leaving the least time to absorb the information.
Takeaway: Clinicians need education on new therapies early and often, in formats where a trusted peer walks colleagues through the emerging evidence, case by case.
Clinicians have a shared appetite for AI that spans a range of applications
Clinicians across therapeutic areas have the same near-universal appetite for education on at least one AI application. Of the 100 rare-disease respondents across two of the four surveys, 94 wanted education on at least one AI application.
The AI application is where specialties differ. In rare neurology, 54% of neurologists want more information on how to use AI for imaging and biomarker interpretation, followed by 46% wanting to use AI to aid in differential diagnosis. In rare oncology, oncologists sought information on AI applications for differential diagnosis and imaging (tied at 48%), and 42% were interested in AI assistance for clinical trial matching. Among general oncologists, clinical trial matching was the top selection (46%), consistent with a setting where trial access is often the treatment plan. For urologists, the question was framed around the clinic business, where AI and technology Implementation ranked high among practice-management topics.
Takeaway: Clinicians want AI education, with 94 of 100 rare-disease respondents interested in at least one application. What they want it for varies by specialty, and societies and associations that know their members’ workflows are best placed to shape it.
What this looks like in practice
Building alongside a medical society or association as the educational partner is the Medlive model, not an occasional arrangement. Our dedicated learning channels are education hubs built with the partner, carrying hundreds of educational activities and millions of learner engagements to date.
Four takeaways worth carrying into your 2027 planning cycle:
Who do clinicians trust most?
Their medical societies and associations, through their associated journals, professional conferences, and peer networks. Education built with these partners starts with credibility that content alone can’t produce.
What is the best way to uncover educational gaps?
Evaluating interest and confidence together. Interest shows what clinicians will engage with, and confidence shows where they need help. Where the two diverge, medical societies and associations provide the context to decide which to act on.
Where is their confidence lowest?
On the newest treatment modalities, led by gene-directed therapy. Clinicians need education on these therapies early and often, in formats where a trusted peer walks colleagues through the emerging evidence, case by case.
Where is the appetite for AI?
Across specialties, with 94 of 100 rare-disease respondents interested in at least one AI application. What clinicians want AI for varies by specialty, so each program has to be built around that audience’s workflow.
