24 January 2025 – A recent survey conducted by the Healthcare Businesswomen’s Association in partnership with FemTechnology Insights highlights a critical gap in clinical practice: a striking majority of healthcare professionals—more than 80%—report observing differences in disease progression or treatment outcomes between sexes. Despite this pronounced awareness, fewer than 30% feel adequately supported or trained to integrate sex-based considerations into patient care and trial protocols.

The survey further uncovered that gender-specific research and clinical guidance are severely lacking, suggesting systemic shortcomings in medical education and protocol design. Clinicians cited implicit biases and structural barriers—such as underrepresentation of women in clinical studies, lack of sex-stratified data, and insufficient training—as core contributors to their discomfort in addressing these differences.

These findings underscore deep-seated challenges in delivering equitable care. When treatment pathways overlook sex-based variability—be it in pharmacokinetics, symptom presentation, or response to therapy—patients may face suboptimal outcomes or unintended side effects.

One cardiologist noted that symptoms like fatigue and shortness of breath often present differently in women with myocardial infarction than in men, yet standard diagnostic criteria remain male-oriented. Similarly, several oncologists mentioned that treatment toxicity appears to variably manifest across sexes, yet universally applicable dosing guidelines persist.

The disconnect isn’t simply theoretical—it has real-world clinical implications. Without adequate training, clinicians may miss critical signs, and patients risk being underdiagnosed, misdiagnosed, or treated inappropriately.

Several respondents advocated for integrated modules in medical and continuing education programs—including workshops on sex-based clinical markers, pharmacological variations, and trial design sensitivities. Others called for funding agencies and regulatory authorities to mandate sex-balanced enrollment and require sex-stratified efficacy and safety reporting in clinical trials.

Several major health systems and academic centers have already started to respond. A handful now hosted internal symposia focusing on sex and gender medicine, while others are piloting clinical decision support tools to flag sex-specific risk factors. However, broad adoption remains rare.

The survey’s stark revelations lay bare an urgent need: to bridge the gap between clinician awareness and actionable, sex-informed medical practice. As this awareness coexists with awareness of deficiency, the momentum is building toward a more inclusive and scientifically sound future—one where sex differences are not an afterthought, but an integral part of evidence-based medicine.