MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4409493618 · doi:10.1101/2025.04.14.25325826

Women’s Health Research Funding in Canada across 15 years suggests low funding levels with a narrow focus

2025· preprint· en· W4409493618 sur OpenAlexafffundabout
Laura Gravelsins, Tallinn F. L. Splinter, Ahmad Mohammad, Samantha A. Blankers, Gabrielle L. Desilets, Liisa A.M. Galea

Notice bibliographique

RevuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueSex and Gender in Healthcare
Établissements canadiensUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Organismes subventionnairesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGovernment of Canada
Mots-clésFocus (optics)Political scienceEconomic growthGeographyEconomics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background Females have been underrepresented in preclinical and clinical research. Research on females is important for conditions that directly affect women, disproportionately impact women, and manifest differently in women. Sex and gender mandates were introduced, in part, to increase women’s health research. This study aimed to understand how much of women’s health research is being funded in open grant competitions in Canada that fall under the top burden and/or death of disease for women globally. Methods Publicly available funded Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR) project grant abstracts from 2009-2023 were coded for the mention of female-specific research to assess what percentage of grant abstracts focused on the top 11 areas of global disease burden and/or death that disproportionately affect females. We also examined changes from 2020 to 2023 in the representation of grant abstracts that mentioned sex, gender, or two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, intersex (2S/LGBTQI). Results The percentage of abstracts mentioning sex or gender doubled whereas the percentage of abstracts mentioning 2S/LGBTQI quadrupled from 2020 to 2023, but remained at under 10% of overall funded abstracts. In contrast, female-specific research representation remained at ~7% of all research. Under 5% of the total funded grant abstracts mentioned studying one of the top 11 global burdens of disease and/or death for women over 15 years. Of the 681 female-specific grants, cancer research accounted for 32% of funding (or 2.09% of overall grants), whereas the other top 10 collectively accounted for 38% of female-specific funding (or 2.45% overall) across 15 years. The percentage of overall funding towards understanding female-specific contributions to cardiovascular disease was 0.83% followed by diabetes (0.41%), HIV/AIDS (0.4%), depression (0.35%), anxiety (0.16%), musculoskeletal (0.12%), dementia (0.08%), respiratory (0.08%), headache (0.01%) and low back pain (0.01%). Conclusions Research acknowledging the sex and gender population in CIHR abstracts is increasing but remains at under 10% while the percentage of funding for women’s health remains unchanged at 7% of funded grants across 15 years. Highlights From 2020 to 2023, funded grant abstracts that mentioned sex, gender or 2S/LGBTQI populations doubled or quadrupled. Across the same time period, funded grant abstracts that mentioned female-specific research increased by less than a percentage. Women’s health research accounts for 7% of all funded grant abstracts and increases were not observed over 15 years. Over 15 years, only 4.5% of funded grants examined the 11 causes of global disease burden and/or death that disproportionately affect females using female-specific populations. Of these female-specific grants, cancer (breast and gynecological) accounted for over 32% of all the female-specific funded grants whereas headache disorders and depression/anxiety accounted for 0.15% and 6.9% respectively across 15 years. Given the significant burden of these diseases, greater efforts are needed to expand the breadth of women’s health research. Plain English Summary Women’s health research has historically been underrepresented and underfunded. Here, we examined 15 years of funding data from the Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR), Canada’s major funder of medical research, to understand what type of women’s health research is being funded using the top 11 burdens of disease or death globally for women. From 2020 to 2023, the percentage of abstracts mentioning sex or gender doubled, whereas those mentioning 2S/LGBTQI populations quadrupled, yet still remained under 10% of all funded research. In contrast, across the same time period, women’s health research representation increased by less than a percentage and remained at ~7% of all funded research. We also examined the amount of funded research dedicated to the top 11 global burdens of disease and/or death that affect women across 15 years (from 2009-2023). Across these 15 years, we observed that cancer accounted for 2.09% of all funded research and received approximately the same amount of research representation as the 10 other global burdens of disease and death combined (2.45% of all funded research). Despite CIHR’s mandates to encourage the integration of sex and gender into research, sex and gender representation is low and mandates did not increase women’s health research. More efforts and support beyond sex and gender mandates are needed to increase and diversify women’s health research to achieve personalized medicine and close the women’s health gap.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,019
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Bibliométrie
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: Incitatifs · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,993
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,828

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0190,048
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0070,017
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0090,004
Communication savante0,0070,003
Science ouverte0,0030,005
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0160,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,230
Tête enseignante GPT0,434
Écart entre enseignants0,204 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
DomaineIncitatifs
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2025
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuemedRxiv→Même sujetSex and Gender in Healthcare→Travaux en français237 207→