Modern medical researchers have made significant strides in studying women’s health within the last fifty years, like the recognition of post-partum depression and the investigation of cardiac disease in women. But it wasn’t long ago that women’s participation in clinical research was largely neglected, and even now the problem is far from fully solved.
Medical research often excluded women as clinical subjects before the 1990s. Because much of the data that forms the basis of healthcare practice was calibrated to male biology, female patients face higher rates of misdiagnosis, negative side effects to medication and inadequate pain treatment.
“Historical treatment protocols did not recognize there is a biological difference between the two,” Science department chair Anita Chetty said. “We have everything from crash test dummies, which are modeled after male models, to a scarcity in an understanding of the biology of women.”
Biomedical research understudied physical and psychological conditions that predominantly affect women, like osteoporosis, postpartum depression, breast cancer and eclampsia. Only until around 1985 did this landscape begin to shift, with the federal government recommending stronger investigation into female health and biology.
“Only recently has there been an awareness of what happens postpartum, and that postpartum depression is actually a thing — and it wasn’t until there were some really shocking criminal cases,” Chetty said. “We don’t have enough information directly, readily available.”
Women’s health extends beyond these female-specific conditions to include the study of how all kinds of diseases affect women. Recognizing the need for more comprehensive data in all fields of medicine, women’s movements pushed to improve demographic representation in clinical trials in the early 1990s. This advocacy led to the National Institute of Health (NIH) Revitalization Act of 1993, which mandated the inclusion of women and minorities in NIH-funded research.
“I see now that researchers are making a great deal of effort to make sure that the people in their study represent the population in general,” Director of Health Services Debra Nott said. “Not just men and women, but all races, all ages, and they seem to be doing a very good job.”
Despite recent progress, present-day researchers may still overlook women’s health. Senior Tiana Salvi identified flaws in studies conducted outside of the NIH while writing a report on gender bias in pain treatment. Some studies do include women as participants but fail to analyze how certain variables affect them differently from men.
“When independent research boards are evaluating studies, they don’t regulate the use of sex as an explanatory variable a lot, so there’s a lack of literature around it,” Tiana said. “That’s pretty significant because women’s and men’s hormones will affect pain and disease differently.”
For instance, women sometimes experience different signs of heart attacks, like painful pressure in the abdomen, as opposed to chest pain or discomfort. Since women’s symptoms may not be widely associated with heart issues, they are at higher risk of misinterpreting their symptoms and going without appropriate care.
In light of healthcare inequality for gender minorities, Chetty encourages students to understand medical bias and strive to create a future with better health outcomes for women, whether as a medical professional or a citizen.
“We are just scratching the surface. Ask, ‘Why is it that these things are still happening?’” said Chetty. “There has to be more consumer or voter-driven influence on research and government officials who we elect — it should be part of their platform to ask these questions.”