Our Methodology
Clients often say they value that we take the time to ask the right questions before proposing solutions. We bring structure to complex situations, challenge assumptions constructively, make plans specific enough to build on, and produce outputs that hold up in internal review.
what shapes us
How we think about expert work.
Kendle Healthcare is a research company. That shapes how we approach everything.
We start from a simple principle: expert decisions are only as good as the assumptions behind them. Our role is to make those assumptions explicit, evidence-based, and appropriate to the specific question being asked.
Rather than applying a single, generic definition of opinion leadership, we tailor our approach to the disease area, the product or mechanism, the stage of development, and the decisions our clients need to support.
what Guides us
What guides our approach.
why choose us?
How we work in practice.
Authoritative sources and explicit evidence.
Our work is grounded in citable sources: peer-reviewed publications, clinical guidelines and consensus documents, clinical trials, congress faculty and scientific programme committees, professional societies, and editorial boards.
Where interviews are conducted, they add context, surface expert perspectives, and inform interpretation. We do not add inferred or opaque information that cannot be explained or traced.
Structured analysis supported by modern tools.
We use structured analytical approaches and modern tools to support information extraction, classification, and synthesis. These improve consistency and efficiency. They do not replace human judgement.
Interpretation, prioritisation, and final decisions remain human-led.
Human judgement where it matters.
Some decisions require experience rather than automation: whether someone should be considered a KOL at all; interpreting guideline authorship and committee roles; distinguishing disease-specific expertise from general specialty prominence; resolving ambiguous or overlapping expert identities; assessing relevance in niche or emerging disease areas. These judgements are made explicitly and documented.
Flexibility based on use case.
Not every project requires the same level of depth or certainty. Our methodology is adapted based on how outputs will be used, the level of internal scrutiny expected, and the potential consequences of error. That allows us to support early exploratory work, validated expert shortlists, and audit-grade planning for high-stakes decisions.
Integration across identification and engagement.
We view expert identification and KOL engagement as connected but distinct. Some clients come to us to identify and contextualise experts. Others arrive with an existing KOL list and a need for structured engagement planning. Our methodology supports both, independently or together.
Find out more about us.
Our process is collaborative but never opaque. Assumptions are made explicit, rationale is documented, and conclusions are open to challenge.
