As the AMA celebrates Women in Medicine Month, PIN will be highlighting innovations that promote access and overall well-being for patients who identify as women.
Physicians, care team members, and other innovation leaders will be asking women’s health companies about the healthcare problems they are solving, the solutions they’ve designed, the barriers they’ve experienced in bringing their solutions to market, and the processes they’ve been using to gather user feedback.
Pending
First, we need to understand drivers of the disparity in care. For example, 1 in 5 women are likely to experience a stroke that will be more massive and debilitating that a man experiencing a stroke. This is a solid premise to conduct meaningful research. I work in women and stroke research and would welcome any follow-on questions.
Second, in the ED we may need to think about how guidelines drive care. Sometimes the criteria do not intend to bias, but it does. For example, it was recently found that the criteria to screen for atrial fibrillation includes BMI but substituting height and weight would flip the script on AF risk towards women. While this seems nonbiased on the surface (BMI), it biases towards more men than women being screened. So, in answer to your question, we need to think (rethink) standard ED care and objectives in high volume environments (ED). The ED professional care givers are great people motivated by patient outcomes, but they are screening high volumes and rules driven by downstream specialties (vs admit/ not admit) need to be explored to better understand unintentional disparity.
https://www.tctmd.com/news/vital-rhythm-data-may-flip-script-af-screeni…
Pending
Life Sciences research needs to recognize that women are not little men, and include sex as a biological variable from the benchtop/pre-clinical testing phase of research, so as to better inform clinical study design and translate research into more meaningful medical therapies and technologies that allow for the promise of personalized medicine - https://orwh.od.nih.gov/sex-gender/nih-policy-sex-biological-variable
Pending
I also would add, that the default or status quo of excluding women fo child bearing potential (WOCBP) or pregnant/lactating women from clinical studies needs to be challenged. We can develop adaptive clinical studies and we can safely include this patient population in clinical studies once we establish a baseline safety profile, because we know that these patient groups will likely need to use or be exposed to the medical product (drug, device, biologic) that is the subject of the clinical research at some point after it receives regulatory body approval, so let's collectively work to study the product and provide meaningful data to inform decision making for this subpopulation of pregame/lactating or WOCBP.
Connect
Agree with what's been said below. Technology and innovation often exclude women and people from racial and ethnic minority groups at the development stage, so it's no surprise when the technologies then fail to perform well clinically in real practice. The same goes for clinical rules, guidelines, algorithms, etc. -- all bring efficiencies, but have the potential to reinforce biases and health disparities rather than minimize them.