In our 2025 So What? Research Survey of more than 400 Australian doctors, we uncovered a consistent theme, there is a disconnect between how pharma believes it is supporting doctors, and the impact that many doctors feel.

‍

The good news? The disconnects aren’t insurmountable. With understanding that can translate into evidence-based insight and practical action, pharma can strengthen relationships, rebuild trust, and create real value for both doctors and patients.

‍

Pharma often talks about partnership, purpose, and patient focus. But do doctors feel it?

‍

1. Paperwork vs Patients

In 2025, paperwork has overtaken staff shortages as the top frustration for doctors. Admin, PBS applications, and bureaucracy now consume more of their time than ever.

‍

“The biggest pain point is the amount of administrative work. This includes chasing patient results, coordinating referrals, and acting on time-critical investigation results.” - Cardiologist

‍

When asked about what they want from AI, 65% of doctors said their top priority was simply reducing admin. The message is clear: doctors don’t need futuristic hype. They need tools that make their daily workload easier.

‍

What pharma can do:

• Streamline PBS paperwork: Develop digital pre-fill templates and champion simpler approval processes.
• Speed up access: Keep advocating for faster PBS listings and reduced delays for innovative therapies.
• Offer time-saving tools: From patient-ready educational kits to referral coordination checklists, help doctors reclaim minutes that matter.

‍

2. Selling vs Value

One in three doctors rates their interactions with reps as ‘not valuable.’ The issue isn’t the time spent, it’s how that time is used. Too many reps rely on generic, scripted, or promotional messages that don’t respect the doctor’s expertise or needs.

‍

“Stay with the clear facts and studies. Don’t make it promotional. Just present the information and then the doctor is informed and can choose to prescribe it or not if suitable.”  - General Practitioner

‍

When asked what pharma should do more of and less of, doctors were clear. Good engagement is personalised, relevant and evidence based. Poor engagement is brand-heavy detail aids and scripted sales pitches that feel like box-ticking rather than genuine dialogue.

‍

What pharma can do:

• ‍Tailor the message: Adapt content to specialty, setting, and knowledge level.
• ‍Be useful, not just promotional: Share new trial data, guidelines, or patient tools instead of just repeating brand slogans.
• ‍Respect time: Concise, well-prepared interactions show doctors you value their schedule.

‍

3. The Engagement Tightrope

Most doctors (69%) say rep engagement is ‘about right’. But that still leaves many at the margins with some wanting more rep engagement while others are drowning in emails. 40% of doctors see no reps at all in a typical week, while one in five say they get too many emails from pharma.

‍

“Too many emails - over 200 daily. No time, bombarded by loads of rubbish!” - Neurologist

‍

The real challenge is balance. Engagement should feel consistent and valuable, not absent or overwhelming. Our research shows that it’s not just the volume of contact that matters, but also the mix. Some doctors complain of reps disappearing completely while marketing teams keep bombarding them with generic digital comms. This imbalance undermines trust and makes pharma look disjointed rather than coordinated.

‍

What pharma can do:

• Audit and adjust: Monitor visit and email volumes to identify over- and under-engagement. Audit contact volumes.
• Tailor by specialty: Pull back in overloaded fields and increase support where reps are absent.
• Prioritise quality over frequency: Ensure each touchpoint is timely, useful, and worth the doctor’s time.

‍

4. Reps or MSLs

Doctors see more value in MSL interactions than in rep visits. 52% of specialists rate MSLs highly valuable, compared to 30% for reps. While many are satisfied with current levels of engagement, one in four specialists say they don’t see MSLs often enough.

‍

The issue isn’t just access. A third of specialists still can’t clearly distinguish between reps and MSLs and when the role isn’t clear, the value doctors get from the interaction drops significantly. Our research shows doctors prize MSLs for their scientific expertise, ability to go deep on trial data, and willingness to explore grey areas of practice.

‍

What pharma can do:

• Expand access: Increase MSL presence, especially in fast-moving, science-heavy specialties like oncology.
• Clarify the role: Reinforce that MSLs are scientific peers, not product detailers. Role clarity unlocks higher value.
• Elevate the value: Focus MSL interactions on clinical data, emerging evidence, and meaningful scientific exchange.

‍

5. When Feedback Goes Nowhere

Only 22% of doctors feel their voice is ‘always heard’ when they provide feedback to pharma. That means nearly 80% feel only sometimes, rarely, or never heard and that sense of being ignored undermines trust and ongoing engagement.

‍

Rural doctors feel this gap most acutely, with 41% saying they rarely feel heard, twice the rate of metro-based colleagues (20%).

‍

What pharma can do:

• Close the loop visibly: Prove that input leads to action, not just data collection. Show doctors how their feedback has shaped change (“You said, we changed…”).
• Equip field teams: Reps and MSLs should be able to reflect improvements, not just collect input.

‍

6. Patient-Centric or Not

Pharma’s commitment to ‘patient-centricity’ is everywhere in corporate messaging. But for some doctors, it feels more like a slogan than reality with one in three doctors saying pharma is not very or not at all patient-centric.

‍

“Pharma is very performative, materials that appear patient centred are really just camouflaged promotional materials.” – Psychiatrist

‍

The perception isn’t consistent across the board. Endocrinologists and dermatologists are among the most positive, while haematologists are the most critical, with a majority saying pharma is not patient-centric. Cardiologists, gastroenterologists, and rheumatologists also express higher levels of dissatisfaction. Psychiatrists and oncologists lean more positive but still note gaps between rhetoric and reality. Geography plays a role too. Doctors in WA, SA, and the NT are significantly more likely to say pharma is not patient-centric compared to those in NSW/ACT.

‍

What pharma can do:

• See patients as people: Acknowledge cultural, emotional, and financial realities, not just clinical profiles.
• Address affordability: Advocate for faster PBS access and reduce cost barriers.
• Deliver practical support: Deliver useful resources like demo kits, education, and digital tools that integrate into care.

‍

So What? Research can help

Our customised research helps pharma teams understand what doctors really value, how you (and your competitors) are performing, and equips you with clear, evidence-based playbooks to improve engagement.

‍

Contact us to explore how our insights-driven approach can help your team achieve better outcomes - because when doctors feel heard, supported and understood, everyone wins, especially patients.

‍