Comment EDITOR’S COMMENTwith LOUISE FRAMPTON THE CLINICAL SERVICES JOURNAL Editor
Louise Frampton
louiseframpton@stepcomms.com
Technical Editor Kate Woodhead
Journal Administration Katy Cockle
katycockle@stepcomms.com
Design Steven Dillon
Business Manager
James Scrivens
jamesscrivens@stepcomms.com
Publisher Geoff King
geoffking@stepcomms.com
Publishing Director Trevor Moon
trevormoon@stepcomms.com
STEP COMMUNICATIONS ISSN No. 1478-5641
© Step Communications Ltd, 2024 Single copy: £19.00 per issue. Annual journal subscription: UK £114.00 Overseas: £150.00
The Clinical Services Journal is published in January, February, March, April, May, June, August, September, October and November by Step Communications Ltd, Step House,
North Farm Road, Tunbridge Wells, Kent TN2 3DR, UK.
Tel: +44 (0)1892 779999 Email:
info@clinicalservicesjournal.com Web:
www.clinicalservicesjournal.com
The Publisher is unable to take any responsibility for views
expressed by contributors. Editorial views are not necessarily shared by the journal. Readers are expressly advised that while the contents of this publication are believed to be accurate, correct and complete, no reliance should be placed upon its contents as being applicable to any particular circumstances.
This publication is copyright under the Berne Convention and the International Copyright Convention.
All rights reserved, apart from any copying under the UK
Copyright Act 1956, part 1, section 7. Multiple copies of the contents of the publication without permission is always illegal.
Follow us: @csjmagazine
Follow the CSJ LinkedIn page. Search Clinical Services Journal
Women’s health matters
This edition shines a spotlight on women’s health matters. It is clear we still need to tackle the gender healthcare gap – according to a study by Tetzlaff et al (2024), published in the Lancet Public Health Journal, there has been little progress over the past 30 years. The articles in this issue highlight some of the key challenges around women’s health –
women receive less preventive care and conditions that disproportionately affect women are underfunded compared with the massive burden they exert. Despite making up over half of the global population, this representation isn’t reflected in clinical trials or medical research. According to Imperial College London, less than 2% of medical research funding is spent on pregnancy, childbirth and female reproductive health. (Source:
https://tinyurl.com/5dawxk8w ) We also know that, despite living longer than men, women spend 25% more of their lives in poor health. To address these issues, the World Economic Forum and the McKinsey Health Institute released a report as part of the Forum’s Women’s Health Initiative. (Source: https://
tinyurl.com/5n88jz96) The report outlined four primary areas that need to be addressed to close the gender health gap:
1. Science: The study of human biology defaults to the male body, which hinders understanding of sex-based biological differences and results in fewer available and less effective treatments for women.
2. Data: Health burdens for women are systematically underestimated, with datasets that exclude or undervalue important conditions.
3. Care delivery: Women are more likely to face barriers to care, and experience diagnostic delays and/or suboptimal treatment.
4. Investment: There has been lower investment in women’s health conditions relative to their prevalence. This drives a reinforcing cycle of weaker scientific understanding about women’s bodies and limited data to de-risk new investment
The report concluded that addressing the women’s health gap could potentially boost the global economy by at least $1 trillion annually by 2040. One example of the gender gap is the fact that women are less likely to receive a coronary
angiogram after a STEMI heart attack. Women with heart disease are less likely to receive life-saving drugs and are also more likely to be diagnosed late. They continue to face delays in receiving diagnostic investigations – both for heart disease and some cancers. But inequality is also evident in the way women’s pain is managed. Women are half as likely to receive painkillers after surgery, according to a study by Calderone (1990). Many women also report that their concerns are not listened to. A particularly concerning issue that emerged from the accounts of women affected by the vaginal mesh scandal, is that women continue to be disbelieved by some medical professionals when they raise concerns. Some are also told that their pain is ‘in their head’ - that they are imagining it. The concept of the ‘hysterical woman’ has a long history in medicine, but it is shocking that these attitudes continue to undermine the patient/clinician relationship today. We need to tackle bias, unequal investment in research, and cultural attitudes towards women when accessing care. We need to address the misconceptions around women’s health and close the gap in health outcomes, and women need to be listened to, when they raise their concerns. As we advance in the field of digital health technology, we also need to ensure that these inequalities are not replicated in the devices we develop. In short, we have a long way to go in addressing inequalities… It is time for change.
louiseframpton@stepcomms.com Get in touch and give us your views, email me:
August 2024 I
www.clinicalservicesjournal.com 5
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
