On this page: Communication and information services - Use | Usefulness of information | Frequency of contact | Reasons for contact | Contact channels | Response times | Satisfaction with response | Communications - Overall satisfaction

Communication and information services - Use

Contact with the TGA is strongly focussed on the TGA website, eBusiness services portal and email subscription services (Table 14 and Figure 50). Ninety six percent of participants highlight use of the TGA website, making it by far the most commonly used information channel. This outcome is consistent across all stakeholder groupings. Regular use of the website is also common, with just over 1 in 3 participants highlighting use once a week or more commonly. Regular use is most common amongst Medical products industry (43%) and Government stakeholders (35%; Table 15).

Table 14: Information service - Frequency of use (%)

Table 15: TGA Website - Frequency of use by stakeholder category (%)

The eBusiness services portal is accessed by more than 85% of participants, with use substantially higher amongst Medical products industry (93%) and Government stakeholders (91%) and lower amongst Community members (67%) and health professionals (76%).

Email subscription services are regularly accessed amongst the respondent group, with just over two in three highlighting some use of this service. Use is highest amongst Medical products industry, Retailers and Health professionals.

Despite being substantially lower than the core online channels, Roadshow, Information session and Conference booth events are all highlighted by significant numbers of survey participants as methods of contact that they have used. Given the relatively low frequency of these events as well as the strong potential face to face engagement of these formats, these outcomes continue to highlight a strong TGA presence and relatively strong interest amongst the sampled stakeholders in participation and engagement with TGA.

RSS feeds and Twitter are not frequently accessed or used, with just under one in four highlighting any use of the RSS feed and just over one in ten using TGA Twitter. These levels, whilst suggesting a minor increase, remain similar to those observed in 2016 (Table 16).

Figure 50: Information service - Frequency of use (%)

N=2,303-2,320

Figure 50 in tabular format

There is a general trend toward a slight increase in overall use compared to 2016. In particular, consistent (small) decreases in the proportion of respondents who Never use the services are identified across all information channels (except the website where the overall use remains very high; Table 16).

Table 16: TGA information service - Frequency of use - 2016 vs 2017 (%)

Table 17: Service use by Stakeholder category (% any use)

Health pro: 217-220; Community: 12-13; Med prod ind: 1329-1341; Retailer: 97-99; Gov: 54-55; Academic: 66-67; Media: 1-2; Other: 340-345.

Table 18: Service use - Health professionals (% any use)

Comp health: 23-24; Dental: 7-8; Med pro: 46; Nurse: 17; Pharmacist: 28-29; Other: 89-91.

Table 19: Service use - Medical products industry (% any use)

Sponsor: 754-764; Manufacturer: 394-398; Reg Affairs Con: 114-116; Ind Assoc Rep: 13-14; Other: 44-44.

Usefulness of information

Consistent with the findings in 2016, there is large variation in the perceived usefulness of information services provided by the TGA. The services that are most positively viewed are TGA guidelines (75%) nett Very or Extremely Useful, TGA updates (64%), TGA safety information (57%) and TGA eBS Notices (53%). The remaining information services show Nett Very or Extremely Useful outcomes ranging from 19% for SME assist to 51% for TGA consultations (Figure 51). Generally those who rate the services as Very or Extremely useful outweighed those who rate the services as Not at all or Slightly useful, however for SME assist, Medicines shortages alerts and Prescription medicine NCE registrations this is not the case. These services are also characterised by high Not applicable response levels, confirming the targeted nature of these information resources.

Figure 51: Usefulness of information services (%)

N=1,248-1,549

Figure 51 in tabular format

Comparison of ratings across surveys highlights a small yet generally positive trend toward higher proportions of useful ratings couple with lower levels of Not at all or Slightly useful ratings. In particular, TGA updates (64% 2017 Nett useful versus 58% 2016; 6% rise), TGA consultations (51% vs 46%l 5% rise) and TGA safety information (57% vs 53%; 4% rise) showed notable rises in Nett usefulness.

Table 20: Usefulness of information services - 2016 vs 2017

Tables 19-21 show variation in usefulness across major stakeholder categories. Across most categories, Community members tend to rate the usefulness higher, however the small sample sizes here make these outcomes unreliable.

Medical products industry participants view TGA updates more positively than other groups (68%), with Health professionals and Academics in particular both less likely to rate usefulness positively and more likely to view it negatively.

TGA consultations are slightly more favoured amongst Medical products industry (54%) and Academic (46%) groups, highlighting the low overall usefulness amongst other groups when compared to the overall average (which is strongly influenced by the large industry group).

AUSpar shows generally low usefulness amongst all groups, in particular Retailer (20%), Academic (17%) and Government (7%) stakeholders. TGA guidelines are strongly valued across all groups, although Industry participants (79%) and Academics (73%) show particularly high levels of useful ratings for this resource.

TGA Safety information, Medicines Safety updates and Medical devices safety updates are generally consistently viewed across stakeholder groups, although in the case of Safety updates, Industry members appear less likely to value this source.

Table 21: Usefulness of information services by stakeholder category - Part A (%)

Health professional: N=107-128.Community member: N=8-8; Medical products industry: N=759-960; Retailer: N=57-68; Government: N=28-32; Academic: N=28-30; Media: N=0-1; Other: N=182-222.

Table 22: Usefulness of information services by stakeholder category - Part B (%)

Health professional: N=107-128.Community member: N=8-8; Medical products industry: N=759-960; Retailer: N=57-68; Government: N=28-32; Academic: N=28-30; Media: N=0-1; Other: N=182-222.

Table 23: Usefulness of information services by stakeholder category - Part C (%)

Health professional: N=107-128.Community member: N=8-8; Medical products industry: N=759-960; Retailer: N=57-68; Government: N=28-32; Academic: N=28-30; Media: N=0-1; Other: N=182-222.

Within the Health professionals grouping (Tables 24-26), there are observable differences across categories. Pharmacists are most positively engaged with a broad range of information channels and resources. Dental practitioners (and to a lesser extent Medical practitioners) are generally more engaged with Medicines and Medical devices focussed alerts and updates (including shortages and alerts). In contrast, complementary healthcare practitioners in general tend to be less engaged across the range of information sources identified.

Table 24: Usefulness of information services - Medical professionals - Part A (%)

Comp health: N=15-18.Dental: N=3-3; Med pro: N=19-21; Nurse: N=9-10; Pharmacist: N=14-20; Other: N=44-53.

Table 25: Usefulness of information services - Medical professionals - Part B (%)

Comp health: N=15-18.Dental: N=3-3; Med pro: N=19-21; Nurse: N=9-10; Pharmacist: N=14-20; Other: N=44-53.

Table 26: Usefulness of information services - Medical professionals - Part C (%)

Comp health: N=15-18.Dental: N=3-3; Med pro: N=19-21; Nurse: N=9-10; Pharmacist: N=14-20; Other: N=44-53.

Within the Medical products industry grouping, Regulatory affairs consultants continue to be a key user of resources, showing strong perceptions of usefulness across a broad range of measures (Tables 27-29). Product sponsors and Manufacturers also show strong usefulness ratings across a range of resources, whilst Industry association representatives tend to show lower usefulness ratings.

Table 27: Usefulness of information services – Medical products industry – Part A (%)

Sponsor: N=455-575.Manufacturer: N=216-260; Reg Affairs Con: N=61-89; Ind Assoc Rep: N=5-10; Other: N=19-23.

Table 28: Usefulness of information services – Medical products industry – Part B (%)

Sponsor: N=455-575.Manufacturer: N=216-260; Reg Affairs Con: N=61-89; Ind Assoc Rep: N=5-10; Other: N=19-23.

Table 29: Usefulness of information services – Medical products industry – Part C (%)

Sponsor: N=455-575.Manufacturer: N=216-260; Reg Affairs Con: N=61-89; Ind Assoc Rep: N=5-10; Other: N=19-23.

Frequency of contact

Just under half of survey participants report being in contact with the TGA Less than once a month (48%). A further four percent (4%) highlight that they Never have contact. Just under 3 in 10 participants highlight contact frequency of About once a month (15%) or Two or three times a month (13%; Table 30). Those in very regular contact (More than once a week) account for one in 10 stakeholders with a slightly smaller amount being in contact about once a week (6%). The patterns here are similar to those recorded in the 2016 survey.

Table 30: Frequency of contact with the TGA

Figure 52: Frequency of contact with TGA (%)

N=2,269

Those in the Medical products industry and Government stakeholders tend to be in contact more frequently than other groups (Table 31 and Figure 53). Half of these groups report being in contact monthly or more often. Within the Medical products industry, frequency of contact is highest amongst Regulatory affairs consultants (70% Monthly or more often) Product sponsors (58%) and Industry association representatives (64%). Product manufacturers are less frequently in contact (30%).

Figure 53: Frequency of contact – Monthly or more often - with TGA by Stakeholder category

Health pro: 220; Community: 13; Med prod ind: 1338; Retailer: 99; Gov: 56; Academic: 67; Media: 2; Other: 346.

Figure 53 in tabular format

Figure 54: Frequency of contact – Monthly or more often - with TGA – Medical products industry (%)

Sponsor: N=763.Manufacturer: N=396; Reg Affairs Con: N=116; Ind Assoc Rep: N=14; Other: N=43.

Figure 54 in tabular format

Health professionals (32%), Retailers (29%) and Academics (22%) all show regular contact at lower levels. Within the Health professionals category, contact levels are highest amongst Pharmacists (45% monthly or more often) and complementary healthcare professionals (33%).

Figure 55: Frequency of contact – Monthly or more often - with TGA – Health professionals (%)

Comp health: N=24.Dental: N=8; Med pro: N=46; Nurse: N=17; Pharmacist: N=29; Other: N=91.

Figure 55 in tabular format

Reasons for contact

The most commonly selected reasons to contact the TGA are to lodge an application and to check the progress of an application with the TGA (Table 32 and Figure 56). These reasons are most commonly highlighted by those in the Medical products industry category. Seeking information about products, information about manufacturing and importing/exporting focussed issues were also commonly identified amongst the range of stakeholders responding to the survey. Engagement with the TGA on issues related to consultation activities is also commonly identified.

Table 32: Reasons for contact

*Note: 97 respondents highlighted at that they Never have contact with the TGA in the previous question. This group was not presented with the current question in the survey.

Responses identifying more specific issues, such as product recalls and problems with a device, or medicine shortage, while less commonly identified by participants, represent significant contact points.

Figure 56: Reasons for contact

Respondents commonly highlight a range of reasons for making contact, with an average of 2.3 reasons per respondent. Most often, respondents highlight two, three or four reasons (Table 33). The overall pattern here is similar to that observed in the 2016 survey, although the average number of reasons for contact was down from 3.2 in 2016.

In addition to the reasons provided in the survey, a range of Other reasons are identified in open ended options for this question. These include:

• ACE scheme.
• Advertising compliance, exemptions and complaints.
• Fees and payments information.
• ARTG.
• Audit issues.
• Clarification of issues - various (e.g. guidelines; legislation, regulations).
• Clinical trials information.
• CTN applications.
• eSubmissions.
• GMP audits and certification.
• Information – general.
• Ingredients.
• Inspections - responses and reviews.
• Licensing and licensing variations.
• Medicinal cannabis.
• Payments and fees.
• Assistance with the website, portal or other IT.
• Pharmacovigilance.
• IVD queries.
• Research.
• Updating information or advice - e.g. contact information; registration information.

Contact channels

The most common contact channel is via email, followed by phone (Table 34 and Figure 57). Along with the website, these channels represent the key methods of contact that will be utilised by those wishing to make contact with TGA. The pattern is consistent with that observed in 2016. A notable difference compared to 2016 is that the proportion of overall selections accounted for by the website appears to be rising slightly, up from 16% of total selections to 18%.

This pattern of contact methods is similar across all groups and sub-groups in the survey.

Letter and fax contact methods are still utilised by a small proportion of people and will continue to need some monitoring and resourcing. These methods continue to be most commonly used by those in the Medical products industry and Health professionals. However, it is notable that as a proportion of the overall selections, both methods appear to be in decline, with the proportion of selections represented by fax contacts halving between 2016 and 2017 (1% down to 0.5%) and the proportion of Letter selections falling from 6% in 2016 to 4.5% in 2017.

Table 34: Contact channels

Figure 57: Contact channel

Other contact methods identified in free text responses are:

• Through the eBS or online portal.
• Face to face.
• Via a sponsor.
• Via a consultant.

A range of contact methods are used by individuals, although the average number of selections declined slightly between 2016 and 2017 (from 2.2 to 1.5 selections per respondent; Table 35). This was largely driven by a rise in the proportion of people selecting a single contact method (commonly email or phone).

Response times

Respondents who had highlighted use of the individual contact channels identified in the survey were asked to highlight how long it generally takes to receive a response (Table 36 and Figure 58). As expected, the contact method with the fastest average resolution time is phone, with just under three in ten highlighting immediate response and 83% experiencing a response in two days or less (2016 83%).

Website and email contacts also show strong response levels – 60% and 58% respectively receiving a response in two days or less. In both cases the remaining responses commonly report response times of between 3 and 10 days, with almost 1 in 3 responses in each of these categories falling within this band. This large group, representing a significant overall proportion of incoming contacts, presents a key opportunity for the TGA. Increasing perceptions and experiences of fast response times, particularly via the website channel, will promote the ongoing use of this contact method over (less efficient) phone contacts.

Table 36: Response times by contact category (%)

Figure 58: Response times by contact category (%)

N=21-1,764

As expected, Letter and Fax response times are slower, although in comparison to the 2016 outcomes, fax response time appear to have been streamlined, with the proportion of responses received in 2 days or less rising from 31% in 2016 to 45% in 2017 (Table 37). Response time patterns were generally similar across the range of stakeholder groups within the survey.

Table 37: Response times by contact category – 2016 vs 2017 (%)

Satisfaction with response

Satisfaction with responses is high for both phone (72%) and email (70%) enquiries. Continued focus on call architecture, call answer times and limiting call forward experiences will be likely to maintain and improve the phone based outcomes. Further, ensuring that email responses are prompt and provide clear and relevant information leading to high resolution rates will be likely to reinforce use of this channel.

Contact via the website is generally positively viewed. This channel represents a key opportunity to promote and expand, with effective resolution via website visits representing a response mechanism requiring no direct staff investments. Promoting and ensuring that this channel is able to respond to a broad range of needs is key to ensuring continued uptake and use of website resources as a primary contact channel.

Figure 59: Satisfaction with response - contact type (%)

Phone: N=1409; Email: N=1778; Letter: N=185; Fax: N=22; Website: N=751; Other: N=23

Trends across the 2016 and 2017 surveys highlight a similar pattern of responses, with positive satisfaction trends evident across most response channels (Table 38 and Figure 60). Nett satisfaction rose slightly across years for Phone, Email, Letter and Website contacts.

Table 38: Response satisfaction – 2016 vs 2017 (%)

Figure 60: Satisfaction with response – 2016 vs 2017 (%)

Figure 61: Nett satisfied – Phone, Email, Website - stakeholder category (%)

Health pro: N=69-168; Community: N=7-10; Med prod ind: N=476-1113; Retailer: N=31-62; Gov: N=16-37; Academic: N=28-53; Media: N=0-1; Other: N=103-259.

Figure 61 in tabular format

Healthcare professionals show strong satisfaction across the three most commonly accessed communication channels (Figure 61). Within this group, these levels of satisfaction are driven by fluctuating experiences (Figure 62), however the small sample sizes here are small.

Figure 62: Nett satisfied - Phone, Email, Website – Healthcare professionals (%)

Comp health: N=7-16; Dental: N=3-4; Med pro: N=8-37; Nurse: N=7-13; Pharmacist: N=11-23; Other: N=31-72;

Figure 62 in tabular format

As with other areas of the survey, Product sponsors and Product manufacturers show satisfaction levels generally in line with or just above the overall average. In contrast, Industry association representatives and regulatory affairs consultants show generally lower than average results across the three main channels of Phone, Email and Website contact (Figure 63).

Figure 63: Nett satisfied - Phone, Email, Website – Medical products industry (%)

Sponsor: N=288-653; Manufacturer: N=128-304; Reg Affairs Con: N=44-109; Ind Assoc Rep: N=2-11; Other: N=12-32.

Figure 63 in tabular format

While the differences across stakeholder categories offer important insights into the experience of various groups making contact with the TGA, the main driver of satisfaction across all contact channels is response times. Figure 64 highlights the strong association here, with immediate and single day response times resulting in satisfaction levels of above 80% coupled with very low levels of dissatisfaction. Beyond this, increasing response times result in falling satisfaction and increasing dissatisfaction. Continued focus on achieving streamlined processes for responding to contacts is recommended. Target outcomes here will depend on the contact method being considered, with website optimisation, call architecture and call response outcomes, email handling processes and efforts to drive down use of less responsive channels such as fax and letter all potentially relevant strategies.

Figure 64: Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction with contact (all contact methods) vs Response time

Figure 64 in tabular format

Communications - Overall satisfaction

Overall nett satisfaction with the experience of communicating with the TGA is observed at 69%, with 12% highlighting some level of dissatisfaction (Table 39). This level compares favourably with the 2016 results, representing a rise of 6% Nett satisfaction and a slight (3%) drop in Nett dissatisfaction.

Table 39: Communication- Overall satisfaction – 2016 vs 2017

Medical products industry (70% Nett satisfaction) and Health professionals (70%) show generally strong levels of satisfaction (Table 40). Within the Medical products industry category, high levels of satisfaction with communication outcomes are evident across both Product sponsor and Product manufacturer categories (73% and 70% respectively). As observed in a range of other areas within the survey, satisfaction is particularly low amongst the small group of Industry association representatives, with 5 of the 12 respondents satisfied with the overall outcome and a further 5 expressing dissatisfaction.

Within the health professional category, there are large fluctuations in satisfaction across the range of relatively small groups identified. Medical practitioner (69% Nett satisfied), Pharmacist (74%), Nurse (87%) and Other (70%) categories all showed generally strong levels of satisfaction. Importantly, overall Nett dissatisfaction amongst health professionals was consistently low (at or below 10% in most cases).

Government (49% Nett satisfied; 21% Nett dissatisfied) and Retailer (65% Nett satisfied; 16% Nett dissatisfied) stakeholders show relatively low levels of Nett satisfaction and relatively high levels of nett dissatisfaction. Whilst these groupings appear to represent a relatively small proportion of the stakeholder population, ensuring that communications are relevant, timely and targeted to the needs of these stakeholders is likely to address lower outcomes in this area.

Table 40: Communication – Overall satisfaction by Stakeholder category, Industry, and Health professional categories (%)

Participants were provided with an opportunity to comment on their experience communicating with the TGA. These comments provided a broad range of feedback.