Connect with us

Insight

Bridging the gap: How can design research drive better healthcare outcomes for women?

Published

on

By Hollie Johnston, Principal – Human Factors & Research at PDD, a global product and experience consultancy 

It can no longer be argued that there is a data gap in women’s healthcare – with most available data historically biased towards men.

The underrepresentation of women in clinical research, often due to complexities of hormonal cycles has led to a lack of knowledge about drug impact on women.

Minimal research into support solutions for those suffering from endometriosis — which affects roughly 10 per cent (190 million) of reproductive-age women and girls globally or the lack of consideration for physiological differences in load-bearing that lead to higher failure rates of certain hip implants in women than men, are just a few examples of how healthcare systems, shaped by incomplete data, have failed to address women’s specific needs, with consistent negative impacts on healthcare outcomes. 

This data gap has huge implications for developing healthcare products, systems, and services.

It reinforces everyday experiences of bias and leads to unconscious bias when relying on Big Data. As AI technologies that emulate human intelligence and problem-solving capabilities advance, the risk of perpetuating inequality through incomplete and inaccurate datasets grows.  

Designing better for women 

As Caroline Criado Perez beautifully puts it in her book Invisible Women, “When designing, we need a woman in the room”.

From a design research perspective, this means considering the abilities, actions, and opinions of the intended user profile throughout the development process.

Even with the best of intentions, we cannot live another person’s experiences nor physically put ourselves in their shoes. If we tried, our conclusions would naturally be based on our experiences and understanding (inherent experience bias). 

Including those with lived experience is a priority when planning research, not least when it comes to designing for women.

Consider a chronic condition such as endometriosis, which has a significant impact on the lives of sufferers.

Symptoms can vary from painful menstrual cramps and heavy menstrual bleeding, through to fatigue, and inability to get pregnant.

Symptoms can vary in type and severity over time – both during a monthly cycle, and over life stages.

Only by immersing ourselves in the lives and experiences of these women over an extended period can researchers and designers hope to understand the complexity of their needs, and therefore develop innovative and practical solutions that truly address them.

The woman in the room: Participant identification 

As practitioners, delivering inclusive, user-driven solutions is at the heart of what we do.

A key component of development is identifying the correct stakeholders, identifying their needs and validating potential solutions with them. 

This is where it becomes tricky.

On paper, proportional representation (where the proportion of participants recruited reflects the current real-world status) might seem like a valid method when recruiting.

In reality, in areas currently male-dominated, such as when researching ergonomics for cardiac surgeons, the needs and requirements of a much smaller female cohort would be significantly diluted, with potentially negative consequences in terms of device, system and service usability for women. 

Therefore, participants should be selected on a case-by-case basis, using proportional representation as a starting point rather than a standard. 

Building the stage: Study Setup 

There are many ways to conduct design research and the method chosen should be relevant to the investigation topic. For example, evaluating a surgical tool might be best done in a surgical setting (or simulation lab). 

Similarly, the setup of the evaluation should consider who is being evaluated.

Alzheimer’s, for example, is a disease that can be exacerbated by stress or change – such as the introduction of new people, activities, or equipment, all factors which are relevant to a research study.

When it comes to gender and sex, cultural and social factors might also be at play.

It may be inappropriate in some cultures, for example, for a woman to attend a solo face-to-face session or to speak to strangers about intimate health matters.

Study methodology is, therefore, critical to success.

When designing study methodology, it is important to consider not only technical objectives but also user profiles to ensure all demographics are adequately represented and evaluation methods do not negatively impact participation or study results.

Questioning your Insights: Translation & Analysis

Gathering the data is only one part of the puzzle; just as important is how we translate it and incorporate it into the development cycle to create actionable insights and form parameters for idea generation and selection. 

At this stage it is all-too easy to fall back on assumptions and internal ‘knowledge’.

Instead, we should assess all ideas against the findings of our research to ensure they are grounded in actual user needs.

We must interrogate those ideas to understand what need they are meeting and why they are valuable. 

We should also conduct an analysis to understand whether there are differences – or alignments – between cohorts and sub-cohorts.

Even within women’s health there may not be a ‘one size fits all’ solution. Take pregnancy tests, for example.

It can be safely assumed that taking a pregnancy test is an emotive time for most women; the result received, however, can be very polarising dependent on whether the user is actively trying to conceive, or not.

How do we ensure women are supported during this process – before, during and after test taking – when the response to the result can be so different? 

The role of design research in shaping a more equitable healthcare future

The data gap in women’s healthcare is real. Not only is our physiology different, but so are our behaviours, attitudes, motivations, and cognition.

Passively relying on existing data or engaging the wrong stakeholders perpetuates the problem and misses opportunities for innovation.

In recent years, the rise of Femtech has opened the possibility to eventually close the data gap with wearable devices and companion apps to address the unmet health needs of women granting passive and active data collection for female-specific conditions (e.g. menopause, fertility, etc.).

But robust processes during product and service design, development, and evaluation remain crucial to ensure women’s distinct requirements are met. 

Beyond product development, there is also scope to use design research and, more broadly, Human-Centred Design principles to drive change on a larger scale, influencing education, awareness, and policy.

A focus on organisational ergonomics, for example, applying HFE tools to organisational behaviour, can ensure that women’s needs are considered from the outset.  

Crucially, addressing the data gap in women’s healthcare can set the scene to tackle further inequalities across genders, socio-economic groups and cultures.

Only by being aware of data limitations and actively collecting data to counteract them can we ensure we are designing for the right people in the right way and achieve healthcare equity for all. 

Insight

Working from home linked to higher fertility, research finds

Published

on

Working from home is linked to 0.32 more children per woman when both partners do it at least once a week, research across 38 countries suggests.

The study found that among working adults aged 20 to 45, estimated lifetime fertility, meaning children already born or fathered plus plans for future children, rises when one or both partners work remotely.

In the US, the increase was even higher at 0.45 children per woman.

On average, women whose partners did not work from home had 2.26 children.

When the woman worked from home at least one day a week, this rose to 2.48. When both partners did so, it increased to 2.58.

If the man worked from home at least one day a week, the increase was more limited at 2.36 children.

The research, by Steven J. Davis and colleagues and published as a working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research, points to three possible explanations.

Remote working may make it easier to balance childcare with paid work, leading some couples to have more children.

Families with children may also be more likely to look for remote roles. Or the growing availability of those roles may lift fertility by opening up more parent-friendly jobs.

“All three stories align with the idea that WFH jobs make it easier for parents to combine child rearing and employment,” the report suggests.

The pattern held both after the pandemic, between 2023 and 2025, and before it, between 2017 and 2019.

The implications for national fertility rates vary mainly because working-from-home rates differ widely between countries.

Among workers aged 20 to 45, the share working from home at least one day a week ranges from 21 per cent in Japan to 60 per cent in Vietnam. The UK ranks third globally and leads Europe at 54 per cent.

The report estimates that, if “interpreted causally”, remote working accounts for 8.1 per cent of US fertility, equal to about 291,000 births a year as of 2024.

The researchers note that while this may sound modest, it is larger than the effect of government spending on early childhood care and education in the US.

“Bringing WFH rates to the levels that currently prevail in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada has the potential to materially boost fertility in many other countries,” the report suggests.

However, the research cautions against broad policy approaches, saying the desire for remote work varies widely between individuals, and that it is not practical in every job or organisation.

“Thus, policy interventions that push for a one-size-fits-all approach to working arrangements are likely to yield unhappier workers and lower productivity,” it warns.

A UK Parliament report has also found that remote and hybrid work can boost employment, with parents, carers and people with disabilities likely to benefit most from more flexible working options.

Continue Reading

Insight

Radiotherapy may cut lymphoedema risk

Published

on

Radiotherapy to the armpit instead of surgery may cut lymphoedema risk in some breast cancer patients, early trial results suggest.

Lymphoedema is swelling of the arm or armpit that can happen after surgery to remove lymph nodes.

New findings suggest axillary radiotherapy may be as effective at killing any remaining cancer cells while being less likely to trigger this complication.

The results come from the pilot phase of a phase III randomised international clinical trial looking at whether axillary radiotherapy has a lower risk of lymphoedema than axillary lymph node dissection in breast cancer patients who have had chemotherapy or hormone therapy before surgery, and whose cancer has spread to only one or two lymph nodes.

The trial will also assess overall survival and disease-free survival.

The researchers stressed that these are preliminary results from two years of follow-up in the pilot study, and that clinicians should wait for results from the ongoing phase III trial before considering changes to clinical practice.

Amparo Garcia-Tejedor, from the Functional Breast Unit at Bellvitge University Hospital in Spain and the Institut Català d’Oncologia, is leading the trial.

She said studies had already shown that axillary radiotherapy was a good alternative to axillary lymph node dissection in patients whose first line of treatment was surgery.

She said: “In situations where patients have received chemotherapy or hormone therapy before surgery, it is expected that results could be similar. However, robust prospective data are not yet fully established or published.

“Many patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy experience a significant reduction in axillary disease burden and ultimately present with only one or two lymph nodes that are positive for cancer metastases, which often correspond to the sentinel lymph node, while the remaining axillary nodes are negative.

“This observation strongly suggested that further axillary surgery might be unnecessary in a substantial proportion of patients and that a strategy of de-escalation should be explored.”

From June 2021 to April 2023, the ADARNAT trial recruited 272 breast cancer patients whose disease might have spread to one or more lymph nodes.

The patients had received neoadjuvant therapy and, at the time of surgery, had metastatic cancer in one or two sentinel lymph nodes, the lymph nodes where cancer typically spreads first.

Patients were randomised to receive either axillary radiotherapy or axillary lymph node dissection, and patients in both groups also received radiotherapy to areas of the breast and chest. Results were available for 46 patients in the radiotherapy group and 56 in the surgery group, with a median follow-up of two years.

No cancer recurred in the axillary area in the radiotherapy group, compared with one recurrence in the surgery group, or 1.8 per cent.

Cancer spread to other parts of the body in 4.4 per cent of radiotherapy patients and 5.5 per cent of surgery patients, and there were two deaths in the surgery group, or 4.3 per cent.

Lymphoedema was more common after surgery, at 26.7 per cent, than after radiotherapy, at 18.9 per cent, although the researchers said this difference was not statistically significant. Disease-free and overall survival rates were similar after two years.

Garcia-Tejedor said: “These results indicate that ART instead of ALND is feasible and has good cancer outcomes at two years.

“While some specialists have already begun to substitute axillary lymph node dissection with axillary radiotherapy without waiting for definitive results, the only way to determine with certainty whether this strategy is truly safe and effective is through participation in a well-designed clinical trial such as the one we are now conducting.

“This is particularly important given that the study population includes patients with residual axillary disease and, therefore, a potentially worse prognosis.

“In this context, treatment decisions should not be made without robust evidence.

“Our trial is designed to provide the necessary data to definitively answer this question and to ensure that any future change in standard practice is safe in terms of cancer outcomes and is also beneficial for patients.”

Maria Laplana-Torres, a radiation oncologist at the Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, presented pilot-phase results showing that although axillary radiotherapy was linked to more skin damage from radiation, this was usually temporary and easily treated.

Acute skin damage of grade 2 or above occurred in 27.8 per cent of radiotherapy patients compared with 13.3 per cent after surgery.

It mainly involved skin redness, pigment changes or, in some cases, skin peeling. There were no significant differences in later skin damage between the two groups.

She said: “Some patients experienced mild, temporary difficulty raising the arm above the shoulder or lifting it to the side. These limitations were usually short-lived and did not affect everyday activities.

“We found that treating the axilla with radiotherapy instead of extensive surgery can avoid a more aggressive operation without compromising treatment safety in patients with sentinel lymph node involvement.

“One and two years after treatment, there were no meaningful differences in arm mobility or quality of life between the two groups, although there was a more favourable trend in the ART patients.

“These results show that axillary radiotherapy may be a safe and less invasive option for some women treated with chemotherapy or hormone therapy before surgery.’

“This kind of research is essential to continue improving patient outcomes and to define safer, equally effective therapeutic approaches.”

More than 500 patients have now joined the main phase III trial. The researchers estimate that about three more years will be needed to complete recruitment, followed by five years of follow-up to fully assess cancer outcomes.

Continue Reading

Insight

Report makes the case for an incentive change in health data

Published

on

In a new report, “The Case for Incentive Change in Healthcare Data,” WHIS Lead Producer Poppy Howard-Wall explores why healthcare’s biggest data challenge may not be technical but economic.

Integrating learnings from Poppy’s conversations with senior leaders at the ViVE Summit, the report highlights how fragmented data and misaligned incentives continue to limit the industry’s ability to deliver truly longitudinal care.

Howard-Wall writes: “For the women’s health industry, where many conditions have historically been under-researched and longitudinal datasets remain incomplete, the consequences of fragmented data infrastructure are even more pronounced.

“Artificial intelligence promises to accelerate discovery, improve diagnosis and enable more proactive care. But its potential is inseparable from the data ecosystems that support it.

“In the absence of strong economic incentives for deeper integration, the question becomes how the industry is beginning to navigate this constraint and what signals are emerging about the future of healthcare data and AI in women’s health.”

Read the report here.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025 Aspect Health Media Ltd. All Rights Reserved.