A recent analysis of Australian clinical guidelines has revealed a significant gap in the consideration of sex and gender in medical practice, raising concerns about equity in healthcare. The study, published in the Medical Journal of Australia, assessed 80 guidelines from 51 organizations, covering 27 areas of practice between 2014 and 2024. The findings highlight critical deficiencies in how medical guidelines address the impact of sex and gender on healthcare outcomes, reinforcing calls for more inclusive medical policies and research.
The research team, led by Maggie Kirkman and colleagues, found that 12 guidelines made no reference to sex- or gender-related terms, while many others conflated the two concepts or used them interchangeably. Only four guidelines provided clear definitions of “sex” and “gender,” and just 12 addressed gender-relevant practices in detail. Moreover, 46 guidelines failed to include any reference to gender in clinical practice, reflecting an oversight that could lead to inadequate or inappropriate medical care for diverse patient populations.
Sex and Gender in Healthcare
Despite ongoing efforts to promote equity, the persistence of sex and gender bias in medical research and practice continues to affect health outcomes. Women and gender-diverse individuals often experience barriers to healthcare access, including societal discrimination, systemic biases, and a lack of provider awareness. Historically, medical research has relied primarily on male subjects, leading to gaps in understanding how diseases and treatments affect different sexes. This lack of representation can result in the misdiagnosis or underdiagnosis of conditions that present differently across sexes and genders.
READ MORE: Queensland Biopsy Mix-Up Leads to Wrong Cancer Diagnoses for Two Women
Clinical guidelines play a crucial role in shaping medical practice by providing evidence-based recommendations. However, if these guidelines fail to properly consider sex and gender, they risk reinforcing existing disparities rather than addressing them. Conditions such as cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disorders, and mental health conditions often manifest differently in men and women. Without clear guidance on sex-specific and gender-sensitive approaches, healthcare providers may rely on one-size-fits-all treatment models that do not adequately meet patient needs.
Findings and Implications
The study found that many guidelines relied on research that did not disaggregate data by sex, limiting their applicability. Additionally, key guideline development instruments, such as the AGREE II framework and the GRADE system, do not explicitly require the inclusion of sex and gender considerations. This omission results in an ongoing cycle where research and clinical recommendations fail to reflect the distinct needs of different populations.
The absence of sex and gender considerations in guidelines has profound implications. For instance, women are more likely to experience adverse reactions to medications due to differences in metabolism, yet many pharmaceutical studies still underrepresent female participants. Similarly, gender-diverse individuals may face challenges in receiving appropriate care for hormone-related treatments, reproductive health, or mental health support.
To counteract these shortcomings, the authors recommend that guideline development bodies incorporate clear policies for assessing sex and gender in medical research. This includes ensuring that clinical trials and epidemiological studies analyze outcomes by sex and gender and that guidelines explicitly address these differences when forming recommendations. They also emphasize the importance of increasing the representation of women and gender-diverse individuals in guideline development panels. Greater diversity among decision-makers can lead to more inclusive and comprehensive healthcare policies.
Moreover, the researchers stress the need for explicit guidance on integrating sex and gender considerations into clinical decision-making. By embedding these elements into the framework of clinical guidelines, healthcare providers can ensure more precise, personalized, and equitable treatment. This approach would not only improve patient outcomes but also align with ethical medical practices that prioritize inclusivity and fairness.
A Call for Change
The findings align with recent global efforts to improve gender equity in healthcare, such as the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals and initiatives by the World Health Organization to promote gender-responsive healthcare systems. Addressing these gaps in clinical guidelines is essential to ensuring that healthcare practices are inclusive, evidence-based, and equitable for all individuals.
As the study suggests, ongoing revisions to clinical guidelines should prioritize the systematic inclusion of sex and gender considerations. This approach will help create a healthcare system that is not only scientifically rigorous but also socially responsible. In practical terms, this means developing standardized policies that require medical researchers, policymakers, and healthcare professionals to account for biological and gender-based differences in disease presentation, treatment response, and health outcomes.
Policymakers and medical organizations in Australia must take immediate steps to revise existing guidelines and implement comprehensive strategies for integrating sex and gender into healthcare protocols. Medical education programs should also include training on these topics to ensure that future healthcare professionals are equipped with the knowledge to provide equitable care.
With increasing awareness of these disparities, there is an opportunity for Australia to lead the way in establishing best practices for sex- and gender-inclusive healthcare. The study’s authors urge regulatory bodies, research institutions, and medical practitioners to work together in creating a more equitable and effective healthcare system—one that acknowledges and addresses the diverse needs of all individuals.
