The Better Medicines Report

Listening to patients and professionals to rethink the lifecycle of medicines.

The University of Liverpool commissioned a report in 2023 to engage with public and professional stakeholders on the lifecycle of medicines. The aim was to explore public views and attitudes towards medicines from discovery, through regulation and policy to prescribing and taking medicines. It was important to consider and understand the medicines lifecycle from different viewpoints.

By spending time discussing the medicines lifecycle with both public and professional stakeholders, the report sought to understand the similarities and differences in perceptions and practices. If these similarities and differences are addressed, changes could be made to improve the experience of those that take medicines, and streamline the pipeline that sits behind the delivery of medicines to the population.

Read the full report here: Better Medicines: Public and Professional Views on the Lifecycle from Discovery

Why this matters

Medicines play a central role in healthcare — yet many people encounter barriers to access, information, and long-term support. This report provides crucial insight into what’s working, what’s missing, and how both public and professional voices can help shape a better future for UK medicine use.

Led by Professor Reecha Sofat (University of Liverpool) and Professor Alison Pilnick (Manchester Metropolitan University), the report was undertaken by Hopkins van Mil.

Key findings

Both public and professional stakeholders agree that medicines have transformed health outcomes and view the underlying science as “amazing.” There is widespread trust in the processes that ensure medicine safety, and gratitude for the UK’s publicly funded health system, which supports access to needed treatments.

However, the report highlights substantial opportunities to optimise the lifecycle of medicines. The findings focus on areas where public and professional perspectives align — and where they diverge:

Research must reach more people

People want studies to go beyond big hospitals, include underrepresented groups, and focus on real-world issues like long-term medicine use and polypharmacy.

• Public concern: Long-term harms and lack of support to get involved.
• Professional challenge: Systemic barriers to community-based research.

Tackling the ‘postcode lottery’

Public participants see regional differences in medicine access as unfair. Professionals argue these reflect local needs.

Both groups agree regulation could improve through:

• Better public awareness of the Yellow Card safety system
• Clearer, more accessible medicine information
• Views split on international standards — some public participants see the U.S. as offering more options, while professionals cite its opioid crisis as a warning.

Prescribing under pressure

• Public participants report rushed GP appointments and lack of continuity.
• Professionals cite fragmented systems that block team-based prescribing.
• Both struggle with transitions between care settings and managing multiple medications.

Rethinking medicine use

• People face medicine shortages and little support when switching treatments, sparking interest in non-drug alternatives.
• Healthcare professionals highlight care handover as a major disruptor.
• Both sides back shared decision-making, cutting waste, and giving patients more control.