Women’s health
Closing diagnostic gaps in women’s healthcare
Hermione Blakiston and Erica Kantor warn that delayed diagnosis is having a negative impact on outcomes for women, while placing an increased strain on healthcare services. They look at the potential of promising biomarkers in closing the ‘diagnosis gap’.
Diagnostic delays remain a persistent challenge in women’s healthcare. In the UK, endometriosis can take more than nine years to diagnose,1 leaving women to navigate years of unmanaged symptoms. Similarly, mastitis – which affects one in four lactating women – frequently goes undetected until inflammation becomes severe, even though early self-management can be highly effective for preventing escalation. Delayed diagnosis has a negative impact on patient outcomes and increases strain on healthcare services, with many women presenting multiple times or undergoing repeated investigations. For example, in the UK, nearly half of women with endometriosis see a GP more than ten times before it is diagnosed.2 Scientific understanding is not always the limiting factor. Promising biomarker candidates exist for both endometriosis and mastitis. The real challenge lies in translating these biomarkers into diagnostic tools that are practical, affordable, and robust enough for routine use at the point of need. This is especially important for enabling earlier detection outside specialist settings. Many women first seek support at home, in community care, or in primary care, creating opportunities to shift elements of diagnosis to an earlier point in the pathway. Simple, reliable tools for use in these settings could help differentiate between conditions, prioritise referrals, and reduce the need for repeated consultations, supporting more efficient use of clinical resources. However, achieving this vision is not
straightforward. Diagnostic tools developed for use in controlled laboratory environments often rely on sample types, preparation steps, or equipment that are difficult to reproduce reliably in real- world settings. In women’s health, these technical constraints frequently intersect with other factors such as time pressure, stigma, physical discomfort, and fragmented access to care. All of these can hinder the uptake and effective use of new tools. As a result, usability, simplicity and integration with daily routines are critical factors that determine
whether a clinically valid diagnostic solution will be effective in practice.
Disconnects between scientific understanding and practical implementation reflect broader challenges in how diagnostics are developed and implemented. Women’s health has historically suffered from lack of investment, limited research funding, and systemic under-prioritisation. This includes conditions that affect women differently or disproportionately, as well as female-specific health matters. While women comprise half the global population, women’s health receives only 6% of private healthcare investment worldwide.3 Such chronic underfunding reduces the incentive and capacity to build evidence, validate biomarkers in diverse populations, and develop user-centred diagnostic technologies. Together, these factors help explain why
promising biomarkers in women’s health, including those for mastitis and endometriosis, have not yet been leveraged in routine care. Improving female diagnostics requires the integration of biological insight with practical design and behavioural considerations, and
a new investment mindset that recognises women’s health as both a scientific priority and an economic opportunity.
Early detection of mastitis using a biomarker found in breastmilk Mastitis detection is a prime example of an unmet need in women’s healthcare. This common, painful postnatal condition has implications for the physical and emotional wellbeing of mothers and infants. When identified early, interventions such as increasing the frequency of breastmilk expression can reduce inflammation and prevent infection. Supporting women to implement these strategies promptly may reduce the need for clinical intervention and the use of antibiotics. At present, there is no home-use solution for early detection, and diagnosis typically occurs once breast tissue has already become inflamed or infected. However, a precedent for earlier detection can be found outside human healthcare.
In dairy farming, somatic cell count (SCC) has long been used as a routine indicator of mastitis
June 2026 I
www.clinicalservicesjournal.com 27
New Africa -
stock.adobe.com
t
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 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72
