Why Women’s Health Research Still Lags Behind

The gender gap in healthcare isn’t just a question of equity—it’s a question of evidence. For too long, women have been excluded from clinical trials, overlooked in preclinical research, and underserved by healthcare systems. The consequences are both deeply personal and widely systemic: Women are more likely to be misdiagnosed, experience adverse drug reactions, and face delays in care.

“It’s like death by a thousand paper cuts,” said Alisa Wilson, managing director at Accenture, in a recent interview. “We’re tackling this problem piecemeal, when what’s needed is a holistic overhaul across the entire healthcare ecosystem.”

New research from Accenture and Springboard Enterprises, 2025 State of Women’s Health, sheds light on just how pervasive these gaps are—and what it will take to close them.

Women’s Health Research Still Defaults To Male Models

How Preclinical Trials Fail Women’s Health

Bias starts early and compounds over time. Preclinical research—the scientific foundation for nearly all therapies—is still dominated by male models. Animal studies, cell lines, and early-phase drug testing frequently rely on male subjects, based on the outdated assumption that male data is “universal.” The result? Research hypotheses, safety profiles, and drug mechanisms are skewed from the start.

Clinical Trials Underserve Women

That bias continues into clinical trials. Even when women are included, they are often underrepresented or excluded from subgroup analyses. Women made up only 29% of heart attack clinical trial participants, even though heart disease is the number one killer of women globally, according to Accenture’s analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov data from 2020 to 2024. Women also represent just 60% of autoimmune trial participants, even though they make up about 80% of people with autoimmune conditions.

“There’s a clear lack of sex-specific data,” said Miranda Ewald, director of programs at Springboard. “When women are included in research, their outcomes are often not analyzed separately. That makes it impossible to understand how diseases or treatments affect them differently.”

Diagnosis Delays Hurt Women’s Outcomes

Even before a clinical trial is an option, women face significant hurdles in getting a diagnosis. On average, it takes up to 7 years to be diagnosed with conditions like polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) or endometriosis. These delays are often dismissed as stress, aging, or psychosomatic symptoms.

Despite biological differences, drug dosing rarely accounts for sex.

Amani Bright, senior program manager at Springboard, emphasizes the importance of empathy in solving this problem. “We need decision-makers—funders, policymakers, and healthcare systems—to understand how long and frustrating the patient journey is until they are diagnosed and treated correctly. Women are being left behind because their symptoms don’t fit the outdated mold.”

Despite Solid Women’s Health Research, Startups Face Barriers

Regulatory Gaps Slow Down Women’s Health Innovation

That frustration is not limited to patients. Healthcare innovators are also encountering barriers.

“Even with strong scientific validation, women’s health startups still face real hurdles—like undefined regulatory pathways and unclear reimbursement models,” said Alice Zheng, partner at Foreground Capital. “That slows everything down.”

Women’s Health Innovation Is Rising—But Slowly

Despite these barriers, a new wave of innovators is reimagining how healthcare can better serve women. Companies are working to correct historical research bias by designing more inclusive clinical trials, often in partnership with patient advocacy groups and underrepresented communities.

They’re also thinking creatively about data collection. “We’re seeing startups use virtual consent tools and culturally sensitive materials to boost trial participation,” said Bright. “And they’re considering real-world factors like language, caregiving responsibilities, and transportation needs.”

But to truly accelerate progress, innovators need more support from the healthcare establishment.

“When we worked with a major life sciences client, it took two years just to integrate sex-based thinking into their R&D pipeline,” said Wilson. “They had never considered sex differences at the discovery stage. That’s how deeply ingrained the male-default model is.”

Emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning, offer promise in shortening the research-to-treatment gap. “We saw how fast COVID vaccines came to market when urgency and collaboration aligned,” said Wilson. “AI can do the same for women’s health if we commit to using high-quality, inclusive data.”

However, there is a caveat here as well. AI models trained on biased datasets will only perpetuate the problem.

“To leverage AI effectively, we need to ensure that data is disaggregated by sex, race, and age,” said Wilson. “Only then can we track adverse events accurately, tailor dosage by gender, and improve safety and efficacy for all patients.”

What Real Change In Women’s Health Research And Innovation Requires

Part of the problem, all interviewees agree, is definitional. When many people hear “women’s health,” they think of reproductive health—fertility, contraception, and menopause. Those areas deserve investment, but they are just one part of a much larger picture.

“The market opportunity is not just the uterus,” said Bright. “Women’s health includes cardiovascular, autoimmune, mental health, and cognitive aging—all areas where women are differently or disproportionately impacted.”

Zheng echoed this: “If we think women’s health only means OB-GYN, we’re missing the big picture. Breast cancer, for example, is often called a ‘solved’ disease—but for women with dense breast tissue, early screening is still inadequate.”

Fixing the gender gap in medicine requires systemic change. That includes:

• Funding preclinical research that provides for female subjects;
• Designing inclusive clinical trials with sex-disaggregated outcomes;
• Training AI tools on representative data;
• Educating healthcare providers to recognize female-presenting symptoms;
• Reforming regulatory pathways to accommodate novel innovations;
• Integrating patient voices into every stage of the process.

Most importantly, it requires the healthcare system to see women not as a special case, but as a default patient.

The women’s health gap is not a niche issue—it’s a symptom of centuries of systemic neglect that continues to hinder progress in women’s health innovation. When women are misdiagnosed, overlooked, or excluded from research, the entire healthcare system suffers.

“We don’t need another pilot program,” said Wilson. “We need full-scale transformation—led by research, powered by investment, and centered on the real-life experiences of women.” Advancing women’s health research and innovation starts with closing the data gap—and ultimately, closing the outcomes gap.