Women’s health plays a crucial role in the overall landscape of global public health, yet it frequently receives inadequate attention and funding compared to other health initiatives. This article examines the current situation in women’s health research funding.
Disproportionate Funding Patterns:
There is an uneven trend in the funding patterns for women’s health research. For example, in a study by Mirin in 2021, the author examined the gender disparity regarding the allocation of research funding among diseases in the US. The researcher concluded that in nearly 75% of cases where a disease primarily impacts one gender, funding patterns disproportionately favour males. This indicates that diseases affecting more women are often underfunded relative to their burden, while those that affect more men tend to receive overfunding. This disparity is particularly alarming given the significant burden of diseases that affect women, which are frequently underfunded relative to their prevalence and impact
Unchanged Situation: Status Quo :
There are no significant changes in the funding pattern and the existing conditions are not much changed. For example in a review by Fisk and Atun in 2009, analysed both government and charitable funding for maternal and perinatal research in the UK and internationally. The researchers discovered that, despite inconsistencies in the data, less than 1% of health research funding in the UK was allocated to maternal and perinatal health. Other countries experienced better outcomes with 1–4% investment. Consequently, researchers concluded there is a relative underinvestment in maternal and perinatal health.
Though this study is over a decade old, the situation remains largely unchanged. For example, a review by Stranges and colleagues in 2023 aimed to assess the effectiveness of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research’s mandate to implement a sex and gender-based analysis (SGBA) framework. This framework recommended incorporating SGBA into project proposals in 2010 and mandated its inclusion in grant proposals starting in 2019. However, the researchers found that the percentage of funded grant abstracts, that included references to female-specific health issues or gender differences did not change significantly over time.
Data Discrepancies:
Many conditions that affect women are often underestimated and underfunded because of inconsistent data. For instance, a narrative review by Harder and colleagues found evidence that the prevalence rate of endometriosis can range from less than 1% to over 10%. The researchers discovered health insurance data indicating a prevalence of 0.7%, clinical studies showing 6.8%, and reports from symptomatic patients suggesting a rate as high as 13%. This wide variation in reported prevalence underscores the critical need for more comprehensive and consistent data collection methods. It also highlights the importance of increased funding and research efforts dedicated to women’s health issues, ensuring that conditions like endometriosis receive the attention they rightfully deserve.
Conclusion:
Overall, these findings underscore the urgent need for equitable funding practices that more accurately reflect the health needs of all genders, promoting balanced research attention in the field of women’s health. Addressing these disparities is essential to ensure equitable research efforts that can lead to improved health interventions and policies tailored to the unique needs of women.
References :
Fisk, N., & Atun, R. (2009). Systematic analysis of research underfunding in maternal and perinatal health. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 116(3), 347–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.02027.x
Harder, C., Velho, R. V., Brandes, I., Sehouli, J., & Mechsner, S. (2024). Assessing the true prevalence of endometriosis: A narrative review of literature data. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 167(3), 883–900. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.15756
Mirin, A. A. (2021). Gender Disparity in the Funding of Diseases by the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Journal of Women’s Health, 30(7), 956–963. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2020.8682
Stranges, T. N., Namchuk, A. B., Splinter, T. F. L., Moore, K. N., & Galea, L. A. M. (2023). Are we moving the dial? Canadian health research funding trends for women’s health, 2S/LGBTQ + health, sex, or gender considerations. Biology of Sex Differences, 14(1), 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13293-023-00524-9
© 2025 Dr Mukta Bhattarai Pandey (MD, PGDip Public Health, MRCP(UK), MRes)