The gender health gap represents a disparity in health outcomes and access to care between genders. This issue affects not only individuals but also the broader well-being of society.

Understanding this gap is an important step toward creating more equitable healthcare systems and improving public health overall. Addressing these differences requires a comprehensive approach. Unequal treatment within healthcare systems can lead to serious consequences for patients. One clear example is the delay in diagnosing conditions that predominantly affect one gender.

This article explains what the gender health gap is, why it occurs, how women often face delayed diagnosis for common diseases, and how women’s health research continues to suffer from a lack of innovation.

Most people have heard of the gender pay gap or the unequal distribution of household responsibilities. But there is another, arguably more important issue that deserves attention: the gender gap in innovation and medical research.

It was not until 1993 that women were first allowed to participate in clinical trials. That means it has only been 33 years since women were included in modern medical research.

As a result, many of the medications used today, including painkillers, sleep aids, and anti-inflammatory drugs, were never specifically designed for or adequately tested on the female body. Even more striking is the fact that some medications intended for women were not properly tested on women. A notable example is Addyi, often referred to as “female Viagra.” Despite being marketed for women, it was approved after trials involving only 25 participants, 23 of whom, or 92 percent, were men.

This massive gender gap in healthcare begins very early in the research process. Researchers have often preferred male participants not only in human clinical trials but also in preclinical studies involving laboratory animals, where male mice are often favored over female mice.

Another important example of the gender gap in healthcare is the delayed diagnosis women experience with common diseases. A study based on 7 million Danish health records collected over 21 years showed that, on average, women are diagnosed later than men in more than 700 different diseases. For cancer, the delay is around four and a half years. For diabetes, women receive a diagnosis approximately two and a half years later than men. This lost time could instead be used for treatment rather than waiting for answers.

A further gap in medical innovation concerns period pain. Around 90 percent of women experience it, yet no localized treatment has ever been developed. At the same time, male conditions such as erectile dysfunction, which affects only 19 percent of men, receive a much larger share of clinical attention and research funding.

Period pain may appear to be a minor inconvenience, but it is not. The lack of innovation in this area creates additional risks for women. One of the most commonly used medications for period pain is Midol. For the many women who take such medications every month, long-term repeated use can lead to dependency, much like opioid drugs. These medications may also carry serious side effects, partly because painkillers were not designed or tested with female physiology in mind. This lack of innovation persists despite research from University College London suggesting that period pain can be as painful as a heart attack.

Coronary disease is the leading cause of mortality in women. Yet women are 50 percent more likely than men to be misdiagnosed when having a heart attack. One major reason is that doctors are typically trained to recognize the symptoms of heart attacks as they appear in male bodies. As a result, many women who go to emergency rooms while experiencing a heart attack are sent home because their symptoms are not correctly recognized.

Endometriosis is another example. This condition affects 1 in 10 women and costs the British economy 2.4 billion each year. On average, it takes 10 years to diagnose. It is hardly surprising that diagnosis takes so long, because research into endometriosis remains severely inadequate.

One of the largest studies ever conducted on endometriosis was of little practical use to patients. It focused on the correlation between how attractive a woman was perceived to be and how likely she was to have endometriosis. The study concluded that women with endometriosis were judged to be more attractive, had a more linear silhouette, larger breasts, and had sex for the first time at an earlier age. It is difficult to understand how such findings are useful for women living with endometriosis, yet this was a peer-reviewed and published article.

Another symbol of the lack of innovation in women’s healthcare is the speculum. Although it may resemble an ancient torture device, it is still the central tool used in gynecological exams today. Its design has remained largely unchanged since the Roman Empire. The speculum can cause vaginal tearing and bleeding, and many women find insertion and removal painful.

References

· 1.Shansky RM, Murphy AZ. Considering sex as a biological variable will require a global shift in science culture. Nat Neurosci. 2021;24:457–464. doi: 10.1038/s41593-021-00806-8.

· 2.Polack FP, Thomas SJ, Kitchin N, Absalon J, Gurtman A, Lockhart S. Safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:2603–2615. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2034577.

· 3.Dusenbery M. Doing harm: the truth about how bad medicine and lazy science leave women dismissed, misdiagnosed, and sick. San Francisco: HarperOne; 2018.

· 4.Perez CC. Invisible women: data bias in a world designed for men. New York: Abrams Press; 2019.

· 5.McGregor AJ. Sex matters: how male-centric medicine endangers women's health and what we can do about it. Paris: Hachette Go; 2020.

· 6.Beery AK, Zucker I. Sex bias in neuroscience and biomedical research. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2011;35:565–572. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.07.002.

· 7.Hay K, McDougal L, Percival V, Henry S, Klugman J, Wurie H. Disrupting gender norms in health systems making the case for change. Lancet. 2019;393:2535–2549. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30648-8.

· 8.Zucker I, Prendergast BJ. Sex differences in pharmacokinetics predict adverse drug reactions in women. Biol Sex Differ. 2020;11:32–32. doi: 10.1186/s13293-020-00308-5.