Gender equality and the gender gap in life expectancy in the European Union

Introduction Life expectancy (LE) depends on the wider determinants of health, which have different impact in women and men. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate whether gender equality was correlated with LE in women and men. Methods Gender equality in the 27 European Union (EU) member states between 2010 and 2019 was estimated using a modified Gender Equality Index (mGEI), based on the index developed by the European Institute for Gender Equality. The correlation between this mGEI and LE and the gender gap in LE was calculated using the Spearman correlation coefficient. Results Between 2010 and 2019, LE increased more for men than women, which resulted in a narrowing of the gender gap in LE in the EU. During the same period, there was an increase in gender equality, as measured by the mGEI, although with substantial heterogeneity between countries. There was a strong correlation between the mGEI and the gender gap in LE (-0.880), which was explained by a stronger correlation between the mGEI and longer LE in men than in women (0.655 vs 0.629, respectively). The domains of the mGEI most strongly associated with a narrowing of the gender gap in LE were health, money and knowledge, while power was the domain with the weakest association. Conclusions Gender equality appears to be at least as beneficial to men as women with regard to LE, thus reinforcing the key role gender equality plays in improving population health and longevity

Does Journal Content in the Field of Women's Health Represent Women's Burden of Disease? A Review of Publications in 2010 and 2020

Background: Historically, women's health has focused on reproductive health. However, noncommunicable and communicable diseases comprise much of the burden of disease in women. Methods: A quantitative analysis of the main health content of articles published in six women's health journals (WHJ) and five general medical journals (GMJ) in 2010 and 2020 was conducted to categorize the main medical area topics of published articles and the life stage under study. Findings were compared with the leading causes of disease in women according to the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study. Results: There were 1483 articles eligible for analysis. In total, in WHJ, 44% of topics were reproductive health, increasing from 36% in 2010 to 49% in 2020, which was similar to GMJ. Noncommunicable disease was the next most addressed topic, with cancer being the major disease area covered. When compared with the GBD study, major disease areas such as infectious disease, cardiovascular disease, and musculoskeletal disorders were underrepresented as topics in women's health publications. Most articles that focused on a particular life stage were on pregnancy or the reproductive years, with very few articles on menopause. Conclusion: Women's health publishing remains largely focused on reproductive health topics, with few articles on many of the major causes of morbidity and mortality in women. Journals, researchers, funders, and research priority setters should embrace a broader view of women's health to effectively cover content that reflects the broad range of health issues impacting women across the life span

Dementia clinical trials over the past decade: are women fairly represented?

Background Lack of progress in finding disease-modifying treatments for dementia may be due to heterogeneity in treatment effects among subgroups, such as by sex. Therefore, we investigated the characteristics of dementia trials completed in the last decade, with a focus on women’s representation and sex-disaggregated outcomes. Methods Clinical trials on dementia completed since 2010 were identified from ClinicalTrials.gov. Randomised, phase III/IV trials with ≥100 participants were selected to quantify women’s representation among participants, by computing the participation to prevalence ratio (PPR) and investigate whether sex-disaggregated analyses had been performed. Results A total of 1,351 trials were identified between January 2010 and August 2021 (429,520 participants), of which 118 were eligible for analysis of women’s representation and sex-stratified analysis. Only 113 reported the sex of participants and were included in the analysis of women’s representation. Of the 110,469 participants in these 113 trials, 58% were women, lower than their estimated representation in the global dementia population of 64%. The mean PPR was 0.90 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.94). Women’s participation tended to be higher when the first or last authors of the trial report were women. Eight out of the 118 trials reported sex-disaggregated outcomes, and three of those found significant sex differences in efficacy outcomes. None of the trials reported screening failures or adverse events stratified by sex. Conclusions Overall, women and men were equally represented in dementia trials carried out over the past decade, but women’s representation was lower than in the underlying dementia population. Sex-disaggregated efficacy and safety outcomes were rarely reported

Where are the women? Gender inequalities in COVID-19 research authorship

– Women account for about a third of all authors who published papers related to COVID-19 since the beginning of the outbreak in January 2020. Women’s representation is lower still for first and last authorship positions. – Gender biases seem to be affecting COVID-19 research similar to other scientific areas, highlighting that women are consistently being under-represented. – This may have implications for the availability and interrogation of sex-disaggregated data and therefore our understanding of COVID-19. – These gender biases hint at wider gender inequalities in our global response to the pandemic, which may reduce the chance of dealing with it robustly and speedily. – Women are under-represented as authors of research papers in many scientific areas, particularly in senior authorship positions.</p