While under-researched, women’s health directly affects their economic opportunities and limits overall financial growth. Women’s health is still under-researched because medical research historically used male bodies as a default, excluded women from some studies, failed to analyse differences consistently and did not always listen to women’s experiences. These evidence gaps have since influenced healthcare, product design and workplace policy. Historically, women and children have also been excluded from research for safety reasons.
In December 2024, NHS Wales launched the “Women’s Health Plan for Wales”, its own 10-year vision to improve healthcare services for women. The plan acknowledges that women live longer, have fewer years free from disability, wait longer for pain relief and are much more likely to report having their symptoms dismissed.
This year, Scotland published Women’s Health Plan: Phase Two 2026–2029 (January 2026), England released its “Renewed Women’s Health Strategy for England” (April 2026) and Ireland launched its “Third National Women’s Health Action Plan 2026–2027” (July 2026).
However, closing the women’s health gap requires more than publishing a policy. It requires better research, better data, better clinical education and workplaces designed around real variation in people’s bodies and lives.
So why is this discussion needed now?
Without an understanding of the history and legacy, assumptions continue to drive activity. This risks policies drifting, becoming marginalised or going unused by the people they aim to support. An example of this is the limited uptake of paternity leave. It shows that culture and practice matter as much as legislation where health and career progression intersect.
How did we get here?
Historically, biomedical research and clinical guidance often used male bodies as the reference point, excluding or under-representing women’s experiences and health needs. This male “norm” soon became the standard across many industries. Vehicle safety testing, for example, uses crash test dummies designed around the height and weight of the average 1970s male.
Early female dummies were simply scaled-down versions of male models. They failed to reflect differences in bone density, musculature, centre of gravity and pelvic structure, all of which affect where seat belts fit and where drivers sit.
Likewise, NASA designed and developed space suits for male bodies, and so in 2019 it had to postpone a proposed first all-female spacewalk because it lacked appropriately sized equipment.
These assumptions also affect women’s health and needs in daily life. Office temperature standards, set for men in the 1960s, can make offices uncomfortable for women. More recent technology, from voice recognition to the sizing of phones and other equipment, continues to disadvantage those whose bodies, voices or needs differ from the industry-standard “user”.
Why is there a research gap in women’s health?
Researchers have assumed that women can be mapped onto the male body, or that they could create a “universal human”. As a result, research has failed to treat female health needs as worthy of separate consideration, and funding and study design can unintentionally reinforce established patterns and priorities.
Therefore, research needs to include women and the variables that reflect their lives. Otherwise, women can be present in the data but still invisible in the evidence.
Studies have under-represented, under-analysed and under-heard women’s bodies and experiences. This has consequences, most notably for health diagnosis, treatment, workplace participation and health advice.
In some cases, the knowledge gap comes from actively excluding women from studies. Policies designed to protect women and any unborn children from research risks have unintentionally created an evidence gap in their health.
What does this mean for women’s experience in the workplace?
When we build healthcare, data and workplace systems around an assumed “standard” worker, women can face avoidable barriers to diagnosis, treatment, participation and progression. Women who wait longer for pain relief, or whose doctors dismiss their symptoms, are also managing their health alongside their work.
The impact is significant. Women missing work because of heavy and painful periods, endometriosis, fibroids and ovarian cysts costs the UK economy almost £11 billion a year (NHS Confederation, 2024). Meanwhile, 1 in 10 women who worked during the menopause have left their job because of their symptoms (Fawcett Society, 2022).
The good news is, you only have to look around to see many great changes already happening. Employers are introducing Menopause Action Plans, structured support for those undertaking IVF and health leave for menstrual conditions. Some are creating company support cafés and communities, or becoming recognised Endometriosis Friendly Employers, as Admiral Insurance has done (Flexa, 2026).
Legislation alone is not enough. Cultural change, industry norms and business practice are all part of the story. Employers need to listen to their employees, review workplace design, train managers, offer practical flexibility and measure whether support is reaching the people who need it.
How The Women’s Organisation can help
Women’s health directly shapes their financial independence and economic options; therefore, our work in women’s economic development uniquely positions us to address health as a key factor in workplace equality. Through funded programmes such as our Women’s Workplace Wellness programme, we have engaged over 1200 businesses in training to help them better support their employees’ health.
Women’s health should be built into the design of work, not added later as an exception.
Get in touch to find out more about supporting women’s health in the workplace.