The GLP-1 Adoption Paradox: What 1,000 Consumers Taught Us About Awareness, Trust and Readiness

GLP-1 therapies may be global, but the consumer journey around them is anything but universal.

In June 2026, we surveyed 1,000 adults across the United States and India—500 in each market—to understand how consumers move from awareness of GLP-1 therapies toward consideration and adoption. The research included both consumers already clinically engaged with diabetes, prediabetes or obesity and consumers without a diagnosed metabolic condition.

We expected the two markets to look different. The U.S. is considerably further along the GLP-1 adoption curve, while India is still an emerging market.

What was more interesting was where they were different—and where they unexpectedly were not.

The findings suggest that researchers and healthcare marketers may need to rethink some common assumptions about awareness, readiness and the role of the physician.

#1: A 32-Point Awareness Gap Almost Disappears When You Ask About Openness

Seventy percent of U.S. respondents had heard of GLP-1 therapies, compared with only 38% in India. Nothing surprising there. The surprise came when we asked whether consumers would be open to a GLP-1 therapy if recommended by their doctor. The result was 70% in the U.S. and 72% in India.

Think about that for a moment.

Two markets separated by 32 percentage points in awareness were essentially indistinguishable on openness.

This is an important distinction for healthcare research. Awareness, consideration and readiness are often treated as stages on a relatively linear funnel. But lower awareness does not necessarily indicate lower underlying receptivity.

India's challenge may therefore be less about overcoming consumer resistance and more about creating the knowledge and trust infrastructure that allows latent openness to become informed consideration.

Put differently:

India is not necessarily resistant to GLP-1. It is under-informed.

That changes the strategic question from "How do we persuade consumers?" to "What do consumers need to understand before they can make an informed decision?"

#2: The Same Barrier Can Mean Completely Different Things

Cost emerged as the leading barrier in both countries: 42% in the U.S. and 46% in India.

At first glance, this looks like convergence.

It isn't.

In the U.S., affordability is embedded in a complex access system involving insurance coverage, prior authorization, employer benefits and patient assistance. A consumer can want treatment, have physician support and still fail to convert because the access pathway breaks down.

In India, affordability operates much more directly through out-of-pocket economics, while lower category familiarity adds another layer of uncertainty.

The research lesson is broader than GLP-1.

A barrier percentage is not an insight until we understand the mechanism underneath it.

Two consumers can both select "too expensive" on a questionnaire while requiring completely different interventions.

For researchers, that means barrier studies need to move beyond ranking obstacles. We need to understand where the barrier appears in the decision journey, what produces it and what would realistically remove it.

#3: The Physician Matters in Both Markets—But at Different Moments

It would be easy to conclude that physicians are important everywhere. They are.

But that observation misses something more useful.

In the U.S., consumers may encounter GLP-1 through media, peers or their broader social environment before entering the consulting room. Sixty percent of U.S. respondents in our study knew someone who had used a GLP-1 therapy.

The physician therefore often enters a journey that has already begun.

The consumer may arrive asking, in effect:

"Is this right for me?"

In India, the sequence is often reversed. The physician is much more likely to be the gateway through which the consumer first develops meaningful understanding of the category.

The question is closer to:

"What is this, and should I consider it?"

That distinction changes the physician's role.

In one market, the HCP frequently validates existing consumer intent.

In the other, the HCP may help create informed consideration in the first place.

Journey research therefore needs to examine not simply who influences a healthcare decision, but when that influence enters the journey.

The same stakeholder can perform fundamentally different behavioural jobs depending on market context.

#4: Awareness Can Flatter Market Readiness

The U.S. appears highly developed when viewed through awareness alone. But deeper examination reveals substantial gaps between knowing about GLP-1, understanding it, being willing to consider it, accessing it and sustaining treatment.

In our U.S. sample, 70% were aware and 70% were open to doctor-recommended treatment, while 20% were current or past users.

India presents almost the inverse research problem. Awareness is much lower at 38%, yet openness reaches 72%, while current or past usage is only 6%.

Neither market can therefore be understood adequately through a conventional awareness funnel.

This led us to a more useful way of thinking about the category: knowledge and readiness are separate dimensions.

Someone can know a great deal about GLP-1 therapies and remain sceptical. Another consumer may know relatively little but be highly receptive because they trust their physician.

Demographics alone do not resolve that difference.

Behavioural variables—trust, motivation, confidence, perceived relevance, access and decision style—may tell us considerably more about what happens next.

From Measuring Consumers to Understanding Movement

Perhaps the broader lesson from GLP-1 research is methodological.

Healthcare research has traditionally been very good at describing populations: diagnosed versus undiagnosed, age, income, condition severity, treatment status and other important classifications.

But increasingly, we also need to understand movement.

What moves someone from awareness to personal relevance?

What converts curiosity into a physician conversation?

What converts physician recommendation into trial?

What prevents trial from becoming sustained behavior?

And what eventually turns a successful patient into someone who reassures another prospective patient?

These are behavioral questions as much as medical or demographic ones.

They also explain why a strategy that succeeds in one country cannot simply be transplanted into another.

The molecule may be the same.

The behavioral system surrounding it is not.

For insights professionals, that may be one of the most important opportunities created by the GLP-1 era. Our job is no longer simply to measure whether consumers know about a treatment or intend to use it.

It is to understand how people learn, decide, trust and change—and where the healthcare ecosystem can help them move forward.

Because the next phase of metabolic health may ultimately be shaped not only by better medicines, but by a better understanding of human behavior.