ArticlePharmaceutical medicine2026
Evaluating the MAPA Medical Affairs Competency Framework: Insights from Amgen-Led Pilot Study in Australia, Japan and China.
Article in Pharmaceutical medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating AI-Enabled Voice to Text for Medical Affairs Documentation and Insight Capture: The RAPID Randomized Crossover Trial.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2026Article
- Development of a Competency Framework for Medical Affairs Professionals in Australasia.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThe biopharmaceutical industry requires fast role adaptation and comprehensive competency development to thrive in a rapidly evolving and challenging environment. Whilst competency frameworks exist for some roles, lack of a function-wide framework remains a challenge. The objective of this pilot study was to evaluate the applicability and potential utility of the Medical Affairs Professionals of Australasia (MAPA) competency framework within Amgen's Medical Affairs to support role-specific competency development.
methodsThis competency framework encompasses six domains: scientific and technical knowledge; evidence generation; compliance, governance and ethics; leadership, strategic vision and professionalism; communication and collaboration; and business knowledge/acumen; each with specific sub-domains with four clearly defined levels from novice to expert. Implementation involved self-assessment followed by managerial ratification for competency level. Overall team and affiliate results were made available on a PowerBI dashboard. The pilot included a diverse range of roles from Amgen Medical Affairs, such as Medical Science Liaisons (MSLs), MSL Managers, Medical Advisors, Medical Capability & Operations, Medical Communications, and Therapy Area Leads.
resultsOur pilot consisted of 42 staff and revealed relatively general levels of consistency for benchmarks across our three affiliates. Most participants met or exceeded the benchmark set for their roles. We observed some variance between self and manager competency level assessment and relevance/applicability of all capabilities for all roles but this was addressed by self and manager discussions to agree on a consensus value.
conclusionThis pilot confirmed the MAPA competency framework's feasibility and relevance across diverse Medical Affairs roles and affiliates. While benchmarks were generally consistent, minor differences were observed across Australia, China, and Japan. The successful pilot outcomes highlight the potential for this framework's adoption across the biopharmaceutical industry's medical affairs for developmental discussions and planning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41191313What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.