Issuu

FemHealth Focus The data imperative Explore more

Contents Page 1- Introduction Page 3 - Closing the evidence gap for women's health Page 8 - Expanding the boundaries of health data Page 9 - Creating a more accessible research ecosystem Page 11 - Creating the system for women's health Page 15 - Conclusion Page 16 - Micro actions, collective impact Page 17 - Thank you to our contributors Page 18 - We undestand women’s health Page 19 - Connect with us on LinkedIn Page 20 - References

“For too long, women's health has been viewed through a male lens, with the assumption that findings from studies conducted predominantly on men can simply be applied to women.” “We now know that approach is failing millions of women. From symptoms and disease progression to responses to treatment, sex and gender matter, yet too often the data needed to understand those differences has not been collected. The reality is that women have been underrepresented in research and inadequately reflected in the evidence base that underpins modern healthcare, leaving important differences in women's health insufficiently understood. If we are serious about improving outcomes for women and delivering on the ambitions of the Renewed Women's Health Strategy, we must ensure that women are represented properly in research, clinical trials and the datasets that increasingly shape healthcare decisions. That means routinely recording the biological and lifestage factors that shape women's health, from menstruation and pregnancy to menopause, and ensuring that sex is consistently considered as a fundamental variable in research and innovation. Closing the gender health data gap is not only a matter of fairness; it is essential to improving health outcomes, reducing inequalities and enabling women to participate fully in society. As McKinsey's recent analysis demonstrated, closing the women's health gap could unlock a £36 billion opportunity for the UK economy. Better data is the foundation for that progress, ensuring women are no longer invisible in the evidence that shapes healthcare, innovation and investment.”

Professor Dame Lesley Regan DBE Women’s Health Ambassador, Department of Health and Social Care

Introduction The gender health gap is well documented, but the data needed to help bridge it remains elusive. Across clinical research, treatment pathways and emerging AIdriven models, women remain underrepresented in the evidence used to shape healthcare delivery and inform clinical decision-making. The consequences are stark. Research from organisations including McKinsey, Deloitte and the NHS Alliance has added to a growing body of evidence showing that women spend more years in poor health, are more likely to have their symptoms dismissed by healthcare professionals, face longer delays in receiving diagnosis and treatment, and, ultimately, have worse health outcomes than men. However, addressing these disparities requires more than simply documenting the problem. It demands urgent action to transform how health data are collected, ensuring women are routinely included in research and that their biological differences and lived experiences are accurately captured. The fourth in our series of FemHealth Focus roundtables sought to move beyond discussion and drive meaningful solutions. Specialists from Mills & Reeve with expertise in healthcare, technology, life sciences and data privacy joined health policy stakeholders and senior leaders from across the women's health sector to share practical interventions and emerging best practice, and agree a clear call to action for policymakers, researchers and industry to work together to build a more inclusive evidence base that helps turn the ambitions of the Renewed Women’s Health Strategy for England into reality.

This is the fourth and final report in our FemHealth Focus series. Scan the QR code to your right and explore our previous reports on investment and scaling strategies. 1

Throughout this report, we refer to women’s health. We use the term women’s health to encompass anyone who has female biology or is impacted by the societal issues faced by women.

During the discussion, panellists agreed that closing the gender health gap is not just a moral imperative, but an economic one. Absenteeism from period pain, fibroids and ovarian cysts alone is estimated to cost the UK economy £11bn a year while unemployment due to menopause has a direct economic impact of around £1.5bn. Women spend around 25% more of their lives in poor health compared to men and the resulting pressure on health and other public services means the total financial burden is far higher. McKinsey estimates that closing the gender health gap could unlock $1 trillion in global GDP by 2040, underlining the substantial economic gains that could be achieved alongside improvements in health outcomes.

‘There is a myth that because women live longer than men they are healthier, but they actually live much longer in poor health,’ one panellist told the roundtable. Another myth is that the health gap is concentrated at the end of life for women because this is where it is concentrated for men.

‘There is clear data from McKinsey, Deloitte and the NHS Alliance that it's the years between 18 and 55 that make the biggest impact on our economy and it's not actually lives saved or lives improved solely, but about increasing the participation either in the workforce or the unpaid workforce,’ they added.

Closing the evidence gap for women's health Two of the top ten research priorities identified by the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists in 2025 related to the fact that women do not have adequate representation in clinical studies. In the US, mandatory inclusion of women in clinical trials was only introduced in 1993, and it was not until 2016 that researchers receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health were required to disaggregate and analyse data by sex (where scientifically appropriate). The UK has trailed even further behind other developed countries. It was in 2025 that the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), through its landmark Sex and Gender Policy, introduced a mandatory requirement for funded studies to consider sex, gender or both and justify the approach to sampling of the target population. However, the consensus among panellists was that while welcome, this alone does not go far enough, fast enough. There are still no minimum requirements for the proportion of women included in clinical trials, and only 5–14% of studies examine outcomes by sex, despite marked sex-based differences in responses to the same drugs and treatments. In addition, the guidelines on sex and gender only apply to research funded by the NIHR.

‘The challenge is that advanced evidence is based on the big commercial trials, but the big commercial pharma companies are not required to look at women’s data separately and they are not required to collect women-specific data,’ said one panellist.

Although NIHR funding guidelines require researchers to consider and report sex and gender throughout the study lifecycle, there are currently no mandatory requirements governing the reporting of gender-stratified outcome data. Moreover, there remain relatively few female-specific studies. A 2025 analysis by The Guardian found that although both sexes were included in 90% of trials, the number that were male-only (6.1%) was almost twice as common as female-only studies (3.7%).

‘51% of the population is underrepresented and we still do not have any standards to say that drug trials should have adequate representation,’ another panellist told the roundtable. As Caroline Criado Perez writes in her book on gender data bias, Invisible Women, there are loopholes for ‘drug manufacturers who don’t want the cost and complication of including inharmonious females with their messy hormones in their neat clinical trials’.

As one panellist put it: ‘Women are not “little men”. They have been excluded systematically from clinical trials because they are complicated.’ Even when women are included in studies, panellists heard that basic information on menstruation, menopause and HRT use is not routinely collected.

Potential actions Emerging technology and alternative sources of data, such as wearable devices, have the potential to increase the amount of female-specific data available to researchers. Health tracking smart watches and rings, apps and digital platforms are collecting huge amounts of data on everything from cardiovascular health to menstrual cycles. Together they could provide a rich and, as yet largely untapped, data source. Although relying too heavily on private sector or consumer-generated datasets risks excluding the most marginalised groups, panellists agreed that data from wearables and digital technologies could help fill gaps in research. However, if we are to reach the Renewed Women’s Health Strategy ambition of improving outcomes for ‘all women and girls in society’, the most valuable source of data is the NHS. Indeed, greater standardisation and integration of NHS data systems were seen by panellists as providing one of the biggest opportunities to improve the quality, completeness and accessibility of data. The NHS, said one panellist, would be ‘the perfect institution to collect the right kind of data’ if its systems were more connected and able to support data sharing across care pathways.

‘There isn’t one treatment in the British National Formulary for a particular disease or condition, there are a variety,’ said one panellist. ‘So, we are systematically baking in bias by only commissioning a few small products, when we actually need to be commissioning an entire pathway of joined up products that when combined are preventative.’ Panellists also identified significant potential in harnessing non-traditional data sources to support earlier diagnosis and prevention. Examples included the use of retail loyalty card data to detect early patterns associated with disease. Research using Boots Advantage Card data to examine when women began purchasing IBS-related products before receiving an ovarian cancer diagnosis has demonstrated potential benefits, and researchers are now exploring links between shopping basket data and cardiovascular health.

Panellists also agreed that commissioning more joined-up digital care pathways could improve both patient outcomes and the quality of the data generated across the health system. By supporting a broader range of evidence-based digital innovations throughout the care pathway, commissioners could reduce bias and build a more representative evidence base. They recognised, however, that the sheer volume of digital innovations available across different conditions can make adoption challenging.

‘Isn't it extraordinary that if you join a trial for blood pressure, you have to give everything - your height and your weight and what you ate yesterday morning for breakfast, but no one asks 51% of the population whether they're having periods,’ said one panellist.

One panellist told the roundtable: ‘70% of women’s health companies are owned by women. 70% of the funding goes to men…If money goes to men to tell women what to do with their body, you are going to get diagnostic tests that don’t work for women.’

Another explained that while patient safety is carefully monitored during trials, hormonal fluctuations are not taken into consideration when examining reported side effects.

‘That data is not collected routinely, and it's not required, but I think we need to push the regulators to really start to think about one data list, because this is the only way we're going to get change,’ they added. And the lack of data isn’t just impacting outcomes, but the ability for predominantly female innovators to demonstrate the commercial potential needed to secure investment. Just 2% of VC healthcare funding in the US is allocated to women’s health while investment in Femtech accounts for less than 2% of total health tech funding. ‘It all feels rather catch-22ish,’ writes Criado Perez. ‘In a field where women are at a distinct disadvantage specifically because they are women (and therefore can't hope to fit a stereotypically male ‘pattern’), data will be particularly crucial for female entrepreneurs. And yet it's the female entrepreneurs who are less likely to have it, because they are more likely to be trying to make products for women.’

Potential actions All clinical trials, not just those funded by the NIHR, should be mandated to include a minimum proportion of women from different ethnic and societal backgrounds, unless there are sound clinical reasons for exclusion. In addition, panellists agreed it is essential that researchers and commercial trial sponsors collect female-specific data, such as menstrual cycle stage, menopause status and use of HRT.

On a positive note, panellists heard that work is already underway in a noncommercial study to not only improve diversity but ensure a more nuanced assessment of participant demographics. A pilot programme is also exploring mandatory diversity criteria for commercially sponsored trials.

One panellist suggested regulators could adopt something similar to paediatric investigation plans. This would effectively require all organisations – not just studies funded by the NIHR – to include female-specific data. Panellists acknowledged that change would need to be gradual but even relatively modest requirements for the inclusion of women would represent progress.

One panellist said: ‘If one thing was to come out of this, it would be for the regulator to mandate that at least, say, 30% of those in trials are women.’ Another told the roundtable: ‘If you mandate that women and minorities or deprived populations are included – even at a low level at first – that would be really a success.’

“The UK has a unique opportunity to become a global leader in women's health research and innovation. We are seeing increasing investment, greater policy focus and a growing commitment across industry, academia, the NHS and government to address longstanding gaps in our understanding of women's health. The challenge now is to ensure that this momentum translates into a stronger and more representative evidence base that can support the development of new diagnostics, treatments and services for women. Data will be central to achieving that ambition. There is a vast amount of health data collected throughout women's lives, yet too often that data remains fragmented, disconnected or underutilised. By improving how health data is collected, linked and accessed for research, we have an opportunity to unlock new insights into women's health and thereby supercharge innovative solutions that deliver meaningful benefits for patients. Recent reforms under the Data Use and Access Act have the potential to play an important role in this landscape. By making it clearer how to structure access to and use of personal data for legitimate scientific research, while maintaining appropriate safeguards and public trust, the UK can create a more attractive environment for researchers, innovators and investors. This has the potential not only to improve health outcomes, but also to strengthen the UK's position as a leading destination for life sciences research and development. This reflects the wider vision set out by the Sudlow Review, which recognised that the UK possesses valuable health data assets but that greater public benefit will only be realised if we are able to use them more effectively and responsibly. Unlocking the value of existing health data is however only part of the picture. We will also need action across the research ecosystem to ensure women are appropriately represented in clinical studies, that female-specific data is routinely collected in a variety of care settings, and that treatment outcomes are analysed in a way that improves our understanding of sex and gender differences in health. Better evidence will drive better innovation. Together, these changes can support earlier diagnosis, more personalised care and ultimately better outcomes for patients. If we can harness these opportunities successfully, women's health could become one of the UK's most important areas of health and life sciences innovation."

Stephanie Caird Partner, life sciences

Expanding the boundaries of health data Addressing the women’s health gap requires more than improving representation in clinical research. It also depends on widening the pool of data available and ensuring it is linked in a meaningful way to support prevention, earlier diagnosis and better outcomes. Beyond the fact that women’s bodies are ‘inconvenient research vessels’, researchers frequently defend their failure to include women in their trials by claiming they are harder to recruit. Panellists acknowledged that it can be more difficult to engage women, particularly those from the global majority and disadvantaged communities, who are significantly underrepresented in data. However, some suggested that women may actually generate more healthcare data than men because they interact with health services more frequently. The real challenge, several argued, lay not in a lack of data, but major differences in how it is collected, recorded and shared across primary care, secondary care, private providers, apps and digital platforms. Even within primary care, testing practices for conditions such as PMOS (formerly PCOS), as well as recording methods, can differ between surgeries.

‘In pregnancy…this data is all recorded electronically, and now we've got MSDS (Maternity Services Data Set), which has national data from across all hospitals in the country, but the problem is that you don't have this longitudinal data linkage that would be a fantastic resource for prevention’. Another panellist described a trial of an early-diagnosis tumour marker for ovarian cancer that tracked patients from primary through to secondary care. The study identified a gap between the ethnic backgrounds of women presenting early and those diagnosed at Stage Four. However, when it came to translating the findings into practice, the consensus grouping of ‘mixed British’ limited any meaningful intervention.

Some panellists pointed to the absence of longitudinal linkage between datasets, particularly in pregnancy care, where large volumes of blood test and ultrasound data are collected electronically but rarely connected in ways that support longterm prevention. One example cited was pregnancy-related high blood pressure and pre-eclampsia, which are risk factors for long-term cardiovascular conditions.

Creating a more accessible research ecosystem The key to achieving meaningful progress will be addressing the shortfall in female recruitment. Women frequently face additional barriers to participation in trials. Pregnancy and the use of oral contraception can limit eligibility, while the competing demands of work and childcare can make the time commitment required by many studies difficult to manage. However, panellists agreed that practical barriers are only part of the challenge. Building trust among women and other underrepresented groups will also be essential. Studies suggest that women are more sceptical about how institutions collect, store and use their data, particularly sensitive health information. A 2023 survey by Deloitte found that 43% of women would be willing to share data from health trackers with their healthcare provider, compared with 57% of men. In addition, cultural distrust in governments and institutions can present a major barrier to recruiting women from Black and Asian communities into clinical trials. One panellist cited a US-based study which found that black women comprised just 15% of participants in published clinical trials for uterine fibroids despite being disproportionately affected.

As one panellist put it: ‘No one's hard to reach, but some people are very easy to ignore.’

Potential actions To address the shortfall in female recruitment, trial eligibility criteria should be reviewed to remove unnecessary barriers to participation, including exclusions related to pregnancy or future family planning. Improving recruitment will also require efforts to address the practical barriers that can prevent women from taking part. Panellists concluded that more flexible schedules, remote access and opportunities for women to join research as part of routine care appointments, particularly via women’s health hubs, could all serve to boost engagement.

‘Having a live system where the patient is able to access and see where the data is used, by who and for what purpose is really important, particularly with AI,’ one panellist told the roundtable. ‘Data is very powerful. You need to harness it to improve outcomes, but actually consent, transparency and AI need to be explainable.’

Funding mandatory participant support packages for public studies and building national recruitment platforms that match women to trials based on condition and preferences such as location were also identified as potential solutions. Panellists also called for greater investment in community-led engagement to build trust among underrepresented groups.

‘I think there is real evidence of a loss of trust in governments and institutions, so we need to find a different way to get to those people,’ said one panellist. ‘Building up trust is not something that is going to happen in a framework…there are people in the community like peer leaders and the voluntary sector who can have more of an impact.’ The Data Use and Access Act should make it easier for researchers to collect and use patient data for scientific research, for example by clarifying where further processing of existing data for scientific research is considered compatible. Panellists said it could be possible to ‘push further on that door’ but that ‘more education, awareness, and really clear, informed consent presented in an easily digestible and engaging way,’ such as using digital media rather than lengthy written consent forms, is also needed to make participation more appealing.

Creating the system for women's health Closing the women’s health data gap will require more than improving individual studies or introducing new technologies. Panellists agreed that lasting change depends on creating the right regulatory, commissioning and digital infrastructure to support better evidence generation and innovation across the health system. AI and digital technologies were seen as having the potential to transform health outcomes for women. Equally, however, they can amplify inequalities that are already embedded. Ultimately, panellists agreed, their impact will depend on the quality and representativeness of the data on which they are built, and on whether women’s experiences and needs are adequately reflected in their design and deployment.

According to a survey of women’s health content creators conducted by CensHERship in 2024 and 2025, posts and advertisements for women’s health products are also frequently rejected or have their reach ‘throttled’, while moderation filters automatically block hashtags such as ‘nipple’, ‘vagina’ and ‘menopause’. Overall, 95% of respondents reported experiencing some form of censorship, while 53% said they now felt compelled to self-censor.

One panellist said: ‘Done well, [AI and digital] can help … earlier identification, more personalised pathways, better access, and condition management. Done badly, they can scale existing bias at speed… It’s a reminder that health AI is not neutral, it inherits what we measure, what we miss.’ The consensus among panellists was that, currently, automated systems and algorithms are failing. A white paper published by advocacy and research body CensHERship in 2025 found that algorithms used by very large online platforms such as Instagram and TikTok routinely ‘shadowban’ or suppress legitimate women’s health information. While the material remains live, it is effectively hidden from search results and users’ feeds. At the same time, information focused on men’s health and sexually explicit material is often allowed to remain visible.

‘There is an entire digital ecosystem that treats women's health as inappropriate. Social media platforms are systemically suppressing medically accurate content for topics such as menstruation, fertility, and menopause,’ said one panellist.

A recent example of this came from a Canadian military dataset where synthetic data led to female health information being mistakenly amplified into a male-only dataset, leading to male records indicating hysterectomies.

The problem is potentially more urgent because a lack of clearly signposted, medically validated information on women’s health is driving more women and girls to turn to social media and AI for answers. With reliance on AI increasing, panellists recognised that its use in healthcare is unstoppable. The challenge, they argued, is not whether to embrace the technology, but how to ensure that regulation and governance keep pace with its development.

‘AI and tech are moving at a consumer pace, and regulation is just lagging,’ said one panellist. Several panellists also questioned whether regulators have sufficient expertise to properly assess and validate AI tools.

‘Because they don't take women's health into the equation… we could be using AI tools that provide us with the wrong outcomes for women’s health,’ suggested another panellist. While the use of synthetic data - artificial data that is generated from original data to overcome real world shortages – could help address underrepresentation, one panellist described it as a double-edged sword, which could also introduce inaccuracies.

Potential actions The roundtable agreed that stronger regulatory oversight is essential as the pace of technological change accelerates. Panellists argued that regulators should be equipped with the expertise needed to assess AI tools through a women's health lens and supported by clear standards for transparency, safety and accountability.

There was broad agreement that with robust oversight, AI can also be used to help address the data challenge, whether that is through the production of synthetic data or an aid to participant recruitment, particularly among underrepresented groups.

They also called for AI systems to be developed using representative datasets and robust governance frameworks to ensure innovation improves outcomes rather than reinforcing existing inequalities.

Privacy-preserving technologies that enable innovation without compromising personal information could also be expanded to encourage data-sharing among women.

Panellists suggested imposing a legal duty on very large online platforms to distinguish between sexually explicit and legitimate educational content. Developments in the regulatory landscape following the roundtable have begun to reflect some of these concerns. Under the Digital Services Act, the European Commission has designated Reddit and Roblox as Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) and ChatGPT as a Very Large Online Search Engine (VLOSE). These designations bring enhanced requirements for risk assessment, transparency and accountability, including obligations to assess and mitigate systemic risks relating to the dissemination of illegal content, the negative effects on minors, users’ physical and mental wellbeing and impacts on civic discourse and public security. This development aligns with panellists’ calls for greater oversight of digital services that influence access to women’s health information.

‘I think there is a real opportunity to move beyond the idea that privacy and innovation are somehow in conflict,’ said one panellist. ‘We focus on building architecture that allows both. [Our] platform uses a highly secure “cold” architecture. It has no central servers and stores no personal health data outside the user’s device, which reduces the risk of breaches or data sharing because the data never leaves the mobile device.’

This reflected wider concerns raised in the parliamentary debate on women’s health and wellbeing and online censorship on 21 May 2026, which highlighted the risk that content moderation policies can restrict access to legitimate health information. At the same time, platforms should be held to greater account for the health information they host, with appropriate safeguards to ensure its accuracy. Ultimately, however, the most effective solution may be better signposting to trusted, validated sources, such as the NHS and other recognised bodies to ensure women can access reliable, evidence-based information easily.

“AI and digital technologies have enormous potential to transform outcomes for women, from earlier diagnosis to more personalised care. However, like all AI, health AI is not neutral – it inherits what we measure and what we miss. If it is built on unrepresentative datasets and a male-default evidence base, it risks scaling existing gender-related bias at speed. Realising the benefits of AI for women's health will depend not only on the quality of the underlying data, but also on the wider digital environment in which these technologies operate. Inclusive design and access to reliable information are also essential if digital innovation is to reduce, rather than reinforce, existing inequalities. Digital infrastructure and technology must be designed in a way that does not leave anyone behind. If existing inequalities are not addressed from the outset of the transition to a more digital future for women's healthcare, there is a risk that those who face barriers to accessing or using technology, or who are mistrustful of it, will be excluded. As a result, we risk failing to improve outcomes for the women who may stand to benefit the most. Reliance on AI and digital technologies in healthcare is only going to increase, so we need to ensure that medically accurate women’s health content is available to all through these channels. It is imperative that digital content providers and platforms do not restrict access or visibility to legitimate health information. At the same time, they must be held accountable for the accuracy and quality of the information they make available.”

Sophie Burton-Jones Partner, technology and data privacy

Conclusion There are reasons for optimism. The ‘Renewed Women’s Health Strategy for England’, published in April, includes a £1.5m FemTech challenge fund aimed at accelerating innovation and bringing new products to market. The Data Use and Access Act should also support research by making it easier for information to be used for legitimate scientific purposes. Meanwhile, advances in generative AI and digital technologies, while not without risk, could help improve the recruitment of clinical trial participants as well as the collection and analysis of health data.

Real progress is built through collective effort. The micro-actions on the next page are simple, achievable ways that we can all create momentum and accelerate improvements in women's health outcomes over time.

Despite the scale and complexity of the women’s health gap, the panellists agreed there was growing momentum in efforts to address it. The problem extends far beyond a lack of data alone. It reflects decades of structural bias across research, healthcare provision and funding. But, as many panellists pointed out, new technologies, combined with improvements in research, regulation and data collection, could help bridge the divide. Many of the solutions already exist in fragmented form, but closing the gap is not solely a technical challenge. It is equally about trust, inclusion, representation and power.

As one panellist aptly summarised: ‘I think the call to action is that we have to look at micro-actions. The fact that everyone is talking about [women’s health], be it the think tanks, the commissioners, the NHS, us as innovators, us as representatives of the FemTech community – all these little bits of micro action and uniting models have to be the solution because digital technology is here to stay.’

Micro actions, collective impact Take part in research

Talk openly about women's health

• Sign up for research studies or clinical trials.

• Start conversations with friends, family and colleagues.

• Volunteer to contribute to data collection and evidence generation.

• Help reduce stigma around topics that are not always openly discussed.

• Donate your menstrual blood to BioGrad.

Engage with policy and advocacy

Educate from an early age

Contact your MP about women's health priorities, such as women's

Use accurate anatomical language with children.

health hubs.

Talk openly about periods and reproductive health with all children,

Support campaigns or sign petitions on issues that matter to you.

including boys.

Use your role as a manager

Encourage proactive health behaviours

Enable flexibility for health appointments, including fertility treatment.

Remind friends, family and colleagues to attend screenings,

Be aware of and actively promote relevant workplace policies, such as

vaccinations and routine check-ups.

fertility, menopause and pregnancy loss support.

Share trusted health information and resources.

Raise awareness of available support

Champion cultural change

Share information about workplace policies and resources

Challenge stigma, embarrassment or misinformation when it arises.

that colleagues may not know exist.

Help normalise conversations about women's health in workplaces

Signpost support services when appropriate.

and social settings.

Thank you to our contributors

Nigel Brokenshire NSB Consulting Limited

Sophie Burton-Jones (Chair) Mills & Reeve

Stephanie Caird (Chair) Mills & Reeve

Heather Cook Ripple Scale

Brandy Coote One HealthTech

Gayle Curry Mills & Reeve

Dr Melis Eda Ekinci Woost Ltd

Dr Christiane Hagel FemTech Germany

Paul Holmes Hologic Limited

Professor Natalie Kenny The BioGrad Group

Professor Asma Khalil St George’s Hospital

Charlotte Lewis Mills & Reeve

Janet Lindsay Wellbeing of Women

Mary O’Reilly 28X Limited

Viola Pastorino TechUK

Professor Dame Lesley Regan, DBE DHSC/Imperial College London

Aamena Salar Modality Partnership

Ally Vey Phoenix Equity Partners Limited

Dr Dimitris Vichas Eudai Clinic Ltd

Claire Williams NorthWest EHealth Ltd

We understand women’s health The importance of healthcare that addresses women’s health is, thankfully, becoming an increasing priority, with technology playing a pivotal role in addressing women’s health and the gender health gap. There's complexity with a highly regulated landscape, the even greater need to protect privacy and difficulties accessing funding. It's still a surprise to learn that women weren't required to be included in clinical trials until 1993. Since then, we've seen an increase in female clinical trial participants, but results are still not necessarily analysed by sex and/or gender – we're here to support those efforts in closing the gap. With extensive experience across the technology, health and care, and life sciences sectors, we can provide a “one-stop” legal service for innovators, investors and providers.

Click here or scan the QR code to find out more on how we can support you.

Connect with us on LinkedIn We’d love to hear from you with any questions, feedback and ideas.

Stephanie Caird Partner, life sciences stephanie.caird@mills-reeve.com

Sophie Burton-Jones Partner, technology and data privacy sophie.burton-jones@mills-reeve.com

Gayle Curry Partner, healthcare and healthtech gayle.curry@mills-reeve.com

Charlotte Lewis Commercial health and technology lawyer charlotte.lewis@mills-reeve.com

References Women's health economics: investing in the 51 per cent | The NHS Alliance Blueprint to close the women’s health gap: How to improve lives and economies for all | McKinsey Health Institute Women’s Health Research Priorities (WHRP) | Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Sex and gender in research policy | The National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) ‘Concerning’ lack of female-only medical trials in UK, say health expert | The Guardian Invisible Women | Caroline Criado Perez The ‘huge disadvantage’ women behind femtech phenomenon face | The Guardian Tech companies have a trust gap to overcome—especially with women | Deloitte Insights White Paper - Censorship Revealed | CensHERship Open letter - It's time to stop censoring women's health | CensHERship Women’s Health and Wellbeing: Online Censorship | UK Parliament Closing the women’s health gap: The United Kingdom’s £36 billion opportunity | McKinsey Health Institute