Gender Bias in Health Care: Hidden Factors Affecting Diagnosis and Treatment

Written by Professor Lesley Braun, Chief Science Officer at Sparkle Wellness

Even with all the progress we’ve made and the growing awareness around equality, gender bias against women continues to quietly shape our lives. From politics to finance, academia to technology, the imbalance is stark. In my own field of science, women hold a mere 28.2% of STEM roles (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) in 2024¹. This isn’t just a statistic, it’s about the countless brilliant minds stifled, potential contributions diluted and the emotional toll inflicted on women with the ability to make a difference. 

Beyond this, bias isn’t always overt, and it can be very subtle. It can be the pointed silence when a woman shares her idea in a meeting, or the dismissive shrug when she’s passed over for promotion or the loud sigh when she isn’t believed. These moments may seem small, though they quietly add up, chipping away at the feeling of not being seen and heard. Unfortunately, this happens every single day, even in health care. 

Where biology meets bias

Preventive health and medicine are areas where biology and bias intersect, with profound and far-reaching consequences. Gender bias affects the quality and timeliness of care and information women receive. It can lead to gaps in diagnosis, inadequate and delayed treatment and unnecessary suffering with devastating effects.

Medicine is supposed to be evidence-based, but when evidence is mainly built on male bodies, women become less visible, their symptoms can be dismissed and misunderstood, and their treatment suboptimal.

The scientific literature is rich with examples. 

How does gender bias impact women?

Women’s pain symptoms are far more often dismissed or trivialized compared to men's. When both men and women express the same type of pain, women are more likely to be referred to psychotherapy than given pain relief, whereas men will be prescribed pharmacological medication such as analgesics or opiates². One study found that when men and women present in an emergency department with acute abdominal pain, women are less likely to receive combination opioid and non-opioid analgesia and they wait longer for secondary treatment than men³.

Besides delayed access to adequate treatment, women can feel misunderstood and abandoned, or at worst, gaslighted by healthcare professionals, partners and colleagues. Furthermore, most studies investigating pain mechanisms have been conducted on males, leaving a gap in understanding how females differ and how best to design drugs and therapies to meet their needs. 

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death in the U.S.⁴, yet women continue to face significant disparities in diagnosis and treatment. A review of 19 studies found that compared to men, women are less likely to be tested for CVD, are 50% more prone to a misdiagnosis of a heart attack, receive less preventive care and medication and are less often referred to specialists. Furthermore, physicians often under-consider their risk factors. Unfortunately, the issue is made worse when women underestimate their own CVD risks. These findings highlight the urgent need for more education for both healthcare providers and patients⁵. 

Delayed diagnosis is also not uncommon in reproductive and hormonal conditions such as endometriosis and PCOS (polycystic ovary syndrome) due to widespread symptom dismissal and misattribution. For endometriosis, diagnostic delays can exceed 10 years⁶ due to patients downplaying their symptoms and healthcare providers failing to acknowledge their pain, coupled with inadequate education⁷. Similarly, women with PCOS face misattribution of symptoms, especially their psychological distress, which is not recognized as part of the broader endocrinologic condition⁸.  

Similarly, women with chronic diseases such as chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) and fibromyalgia report their symptoms as being frequently dismissed as purely psychological, leading to inadequate care and distress^9,10.

A general lack of female representation in clinical research impacts our understanding of safe and effective dosing. Most drugs are tested on a 70 kg male, with limited research on females, leaving a gap which affects everything from dosing to side effect profiles². 

Differences such as body fat composition, hormonal fluctuations and enzyme activity affecting how drugs are absorbed, metabolized and excreted remain poorly understood. Despite FDA regulations, a 2022 review found female enrollment in trials remains low (41% median), particularly in cardiovascular, stroke, HIV, cancer, Type 1 diabetes, and infection studies. Older women in particular are poorly represented¹¹. 

As for women going through perimenopause and menopause, it’s easy to see how sleepless nights, mood disturbances and body aches and pains could be easily dismissed or misdiagnosed as "stress", "emotional issues", instead of being recognized as hormonal shifts. In these scenarios, It’s also not difficult to see how women’s preventative health concerns may be dismissed as "the worried well" (or even worse, "a whiny woman"), instead of being listened to and supported. 

So, where do we go from here?

Health care is not one-size-fits-all, and our health care system needs to stop seeing women as standard, not deviations from the norm. Developing gender-aware protocols, investing in female-focused research, and educating practitioners about sex-based differences are crucial next steps in closing the gap.

Addressing gender bias in health care requires a truly female-centered approach that recognizes and tailors to their specific needs and experiences. 

One of the most powerful things you can do is become more informed, become an active advocate for your own health and well-being and seek professional advice when something’s not right. Make sure you are heard, have all the facts and get a second opinion if you’re unsure. Ask about therapies and treatment options and what to expect. Learn about your body, what’s normal for you and what to do when it’s not. Finally, explore a holistic approach to your health and wellbeing that will also serve you today and into the future because a healthy future starts today. 

I am so proud that our bioactive collagen peptides (BCPs), as a whole, have been tested in women under double-blind, randomized trial conditions on several continents. It means that the results are valid, doses are effective and safety has been demonstrated in women.

The studies conducted in people with knee discomfort show significant improvements, as verified by validated measures. People between the ages of 20s through to older years have been included and results remain consistently positive. 

The benefits achieved can mean the difference between having an active life or becoming sedentary and at greater risk of future disease. The studies conducted on bone health have focused on older women and have also delivered positive results. And our studies showing greater skin moisture and elasticity were also conducted in women. All are safe, effective and well-tolerated. 

Most importantly, these studies were done in women, ensuring the data truly reflects female physiology and outcomes.

Driving real change starts here:

• Shine a light on blind spots. Be an advocate — speak up and share awareness.  
• Shift the model. Women are not deviations from the norm; they are the standard.
• Invest in research. Support and call for studies that represent women’s physiology, bodily responses and personal experiences.
• Adopt gender-aware clinical protocols. These must reflect the lived realities, biological differences and social determinants that uniquely shape women’s health experiences.
• Champion patient-centered care. Listen without dismissal. Validate without minimizing.
• Empower yourself with knowledge. It’s your body, your health and your voice.

REFERENCES:

1. World Economic Forum. Global Gender Gap Report 2024: What Needs to Happen to Reach Gender Parity. Published June 11, 2024. Accessed October 23, 2025.
2. Moretti A, et al. Front Med (Lausanne). 2023;10:1189126. doi:10.3389/fmed.2023.1189126
3. Hayes M, Hutchinson A, Kerr D. Gender-based differences in assessment and management of acute abdominal pain in the emergency department: a retrospective audit. Australas Emerg Care. 2023;26(4):336-342. doi:10.1016/j.auec.2023.03.001
4. Martin, S.S., Aday, A.W., Allen, N.B., et al. (2021). Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2021 Update: A Report from the American Heart Association. Circulation, 143(8), e254-e743. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000000950
5. Al Hamid A, Beckett R, Wilson M, et al. Gender bias in diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of cardiovascular diseases: a systematic review. Cureus. 2024;16(2):e54264. doi:10.7759/cureus.54264
6. De Corte P, Klinghardt M, von Stockum S, Heinemann K. Time to diagnose endometriosis: current status, challenges and regional characteristics—a systematic literature review. BJOG. 2025;132:118-130. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.17973
7. Li W, Feng H, Ye Q. Factors contributing to the delayed diagnosis of endometriosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Med (Lausanne). 2025;12:1576490. doi:10.3389/fmed.2025.1576490
8. Dubé-Zinatelli E, Anderson F, Ismail N. The overlooked mental health burden of polycystic ovary syndrome: neurobiological insights into PCOS-related depression. Front Neuroendocrinol. 2025;101203. doi:10.1016/j.yfrne.2025.101203
9. Chen E, Rudder T, Nwankwere C, Baraniuk JN. Fatigue, interoplastic and nociplastic distress in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome, Gulf War illness and chronic idiopathic fatigue. Front Neurosci.2025;19:1530652. doi:10.3389/fnins.2025.1530652
10. Galvez-Sánchez CM, Duschek S, Reyes del Paso GA. Psychological impact of fibromyalgia: current perspectives. Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2019;12:117-127. doi:10.2147/PRBM.S178240
11. Daitch V, Turjeman A, Poran I, et al. Underrepresentation of women in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Trials. 2022;23:1038.doi:10.1186/s13063-022-07004-2