News and Insights

The gender health gap we continue to ignore

August 5, 2026

Working as a health communicator has taught me that behind every statistic is a story waiting to be told. Through years of reading research papers, interviewing clinicians and translating medical evidence into stories that people can understand, one question has followed me, “Why do many diseases seem to affect women more profoundly, yet receive so little attention?”

The more I looked, the more the pattern emerged. It was not confined to one disease or one speciality. It cut across immunology, cardiology, neurology, endocrinology and mental health. The evidence is impossible to ignore. Around 80% of people living with autoimmune diseases are women, with conditions such as lupus and Sjögren’s syndrome affecting women several times more often than men. Women are also disproportionately affected by chronic pain, thyroid disorders, migraine and osteoporosis, and are more likely to have their symptoms dismissed or misdiagnosed. So why does women’s health remain on the periphery of medical research and public discourse?

Hidden women’s health issues

For much of modern history, women have been underrepresented in clinical trials because their hormonal fluctuations were considered too complicated for research. As a result, the male body became medicine’s default model, leaving critical gaps in our understanding of how diseases present and progress in women.

The consequences are evident across healthcare. Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death among women globally, causing nearly 30% of all deaths among women. Yet, cardiac events in women are more likely to be overlooked, misinterpreted or diagnosed later than in men. Women are also five to eight times more likely than men to develop thyroid disorders, including hypothyroidism and autoimmune thyroid disease. They are also significantly more likely to live with fibromyalgia, chronic migraine, temporomandibular disorders, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and many persistent pain conditions. Yet research consistently shows that women reporting pain are more likely to have it attributed to anxiety or emotional distress.

The consequences extend beyond diagnosis. In the UK Government’s Women’s Health Strategy survey, 84% of respondents said they had, at some point, felt that healthcare professionals were not listening to them. Research funding reflects similar inequalities. Analyses published in Nature have shown that several conditions that disproportionately affect women including endometriosis, migraine and anxiety disorders, receive significantly less research funding relative to their disease burden.

What could be the possible reason for these skewed data? Renowned physician and trauma expert Dr Gabor Maté, reflecting on the fact that nearly 80% of autoimmune diseases affect women, suggested that part of the explanation may lie in the mind-body connection. He argued that many women are socially conditioned to suppress their own emotional needs, prioritise caregiving and disconnect from their authentic feelings. Whether one agrees with his interpretation or not, it shows us that the stories society tells about women’s health shape how it is perceived, prioritised and treated. Changing those narratives is where communication becomes indispensable.

Communication helps close the gap

Scientific progress alone cannot close the gender health gap. Evidence creates impact only when it reaches the right audiences, challenges existing assumptions, and informs changes in research, policy, clinical practice and public understanding. Communication is, therefore, the final step in sharing scientific findings as it can shape which health issues gain visibility, whose experiences are considered credible and where attention and resources are directed.

The recent proposal to rename Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) as Polyendocrine Metabolic Ovarian Syndrome (PMOS) illustrates how language can influence the understanding of a disease. While it may appear to be a simple change in terminology, the proposed name reframes the condition more accurately. For years, the term “polycystic ovary syndrome” directed attention towards ovarian cysts, despite many women with the condition never developing them. It also reinforced the perception that PCOS is primarily a reproductive disorder.

By emphasizing its broader endocrine and metabolic dimensions, the proposed terminology could encourage clinicians, researchers, policymakers and patients to look beyond fertility and consider the condition’s wider implications, including insulin resistance, metabolic health and long-term disease risk. This demonstrates that the language used to describe a condition is powerful as it influences public perceptions, clinical conversations, research priorities and even how patients understand their own health. Here are some of things healthcare communicators can do to contribute meaningfully:

• Make gender-disaggregated evidence more visible. Highlight differences in disease prevalence, symptoms, treatment responses and health outcomes rather than presenting data as universally applicable. Clearly identifying where evidence is limited can also draw attention to research gaps that require further investment.
• Move beyond reproductive narratives. Communicate women’s health as a whole-of-life and whole-body issue encompassing cardiovascular, autoimmune, neurological, metabolic, musculoskeletal and mental health, alongside sexual and reproductive health.
• Challenge the normalisation and dismissal of symptoms. Develop evidence-based content that helps women distinguish between common experiences and symptoms that may require medical attention. Communication should challenge assumptions that persistent pain, fatigue or hormonal symptoms are simply something women must learn to tolerate.
• Use language that reflects the full complexity of disease. Regularly assess whether existing terminology, messaging and visual representations reinforce outdated or incomplete ideas. Accurate framing can broaden understanding of a condition and influence how seriously it is perceived.
• Place patient experiences alongside clinical evidence. Incorporate diverse patient voices into campaigns, educational materials and public conversations. Lived experiences can reveal diagnostic delays, barriers to care and unmet needs that may not be visible in clinical data alone.
• Measure impact beyond reach and engagement. Evaluate whether communication improves knowledge, encourages earlier help-seeking, changes clinical conversations, influences policy discussions or increases representation in research. Meaningful impact should be measured by what audiences understand and do differently, not only by how many people see the content.

At a time when global leaders such as Melinda French Gates are calling for greater investment in women’s health, communication can make such inequities in research, funding and healthcare delivery visible, give women the language to articulate their experiences, and create the public and institutional momentum needed for change. Because the future of women’s health cannot be defined solely by scientific breakthroughs, but also by whether we are willing to ask the right questions, tell better stories, and finally give women’s health the attention it has always deserved.