From period pain to heart disease, the gender health gap is real – here’s how to close it
For decades, women’s health has been chronically underfunded and under-researched. The consequences of this neglect are widespread and deeply damaging.
Millions of women live with avoidable pain, delayed diagnoses, inadequate treatments and poor access to care. The ripple effects reach far beyond individual health: they impact families, workplaces and the wider economy.
In recent years, some progress has been made. In 2022, the UK government launched the first ever women’s health strategy for England, which was a landmark recognition that the health needs of women have been systematically overlooked in research, policy and service design.
The strategy pledged better support for menopause, increased funding for research, the creation of women’s health hubs, which provide a convenient location for women to access multiple services, such as gynaecology, sexual health, contraception an menopause care. These hubs aim to improve access, enhance experiences, reduce health inequalities for women and improved coordination across NHS services.
But just two years later, that momentum is at risk of stalling.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
The government’s wider NHS reform efforts, coupled with cost-cutting, have included the withdrawal of national funding incentives for women’s health hubs. This decision has triggered concern across the health sector.
These hubs were designed to bring together vital services – from menstrual and menopause support to contraception and fertility care – in one location. They have shown promise in narrowing gender health gaps.
One of us (Jennifer) was involved in a recent evaluation by Rand Europe and the University of Birmingham, which found that women using the hubs reported overwhelmingly positive experiences, and collaboration between hub leaders and local healthcare services were key to their success. Yet many of these services are now at risk of being dismantled before they’ve had a chance to take root.
This is not a marginal issue. Women make up 51% of the UK population. Still, for decades, they’ve been underrepresented in clinical research, resulting in diagnostic blind spots and treatments that don’t account for female physiology. Conditions like endometriosis, adenomyosis and heavy menstrual bleeding affect millions but remain understudied and are frequently dismissed.
In other cases – such as heart disease and dementia – a lack of gender-specific understanding can be life-threatening.
Innovation is booming — but is it reaching the right people?
At the same time, women’s health is seeing a surge in innovation. The “femtech” sector is booming and expected to be worth US$117 billion globally by 2029 (£86 billion). From AI-powered diagnostic apps and menstrual tracking wearables, to 3D-printed pessaries, advanced ultrasonic imaging tools and new breast cancer therapies, the possibilities are exciting.
But innovation alone isn’t enough – and it risks deepening existing inequalities if not implemented thoughtfully. The gender health gap persists, and disparities in healthcare access and outcomes are often worse for women based on geography, ethnicity or income. Without inclusive design, these shiny new tools could widen the divide rather than close it.
There are growing concerns around bias in health technologies, particularly AI. If algorithms are trained on data that doesn’t reflect the diversity of the population, they can miss key symptoms, produce inaccurate results or fail to support women from minority backgrounds. Technology must be matched by transparency, oversight and inclusion.
Read more:
AI can guess racial categories from heart scans – what it means and why it matters
Even the most advanced tools are meaningless without strong systems in place to govern them. Innovation must be embedded into accessible, well-funded services – and those services must be built around the real needs of women. Trust, relevance, and cultural sensitivity aren’t optional extras – they’re essential for success.
As the UK government moves ahead with NHS reforms, it must not lose sight of the importance of women’s health. Getting this right means more than launching new apps or pilot schemes. It means long-term commitment and investment backed by evidence.
At RAND Europe, our research points to two central challenges: a lack of equitable access to services and a disconnect between innovation and the needs of women.
If we want to create meaningful, lasting change, three key priorities must be addressed:
1. Sustainable funding: short-term pilots of new therapies or treatments often show promise, only to vanish when initial funding ends. Women’s health hubs, and similar services, need stable, long-term support to become embedded parts of the health system – not experiments at risk of collapse.
2. Stronger cross-sector collaboration: progress depends on better coordination across the NHS, academia, industry, charities and the public. Working together can reduce the duplication of efforts, align priorities and drive real results.
3. Accessible information and health literacy: for services and innovations to work, people need to understand them. Clear, reliable information is crucial – not just for women, but for healthcare professionals too. Empowering patients to make informed choices is key to improving outcomes.
Women’s health is not a side issue. It’s a foundation of a healthy, fair society. Investing in it doesn’t just benefit women, it strengthens families, communities and the economy.
The NHS ten-year plan presents a vital opportunity. If the ambitions of the women’s health strategy are to become reality, they must be baked into long-term planning with clear, measurable goals.
Sonja Marjanovic receives grant and contract funding for wider portfolios of research on healthcare services and innovation. She works at RAND Europe, a not for profit policy research institute and she is a Trustee of The Nuffield Trust.
Stephanie Stockwell receives grant and contract funding for wider portfolios of research on healthcare services and innovation. Stephanie Stockwell works at RAND Europe, a not f profit research institute and is on the committee for the physical activity for health division of the Chartered Society of Sport and Exercise Scientists.
Jennifer Bousfield does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
