Skip to main content
Communications Medicine logoLink to Communications Medicine
. 2024 Oct 23;4:211. doi: 10.1038/s43856-024-00629-1

Eliminating gender bias in biomedical research requires fair inclusion of pregnant women and gender diverse people

Mridula Shankar 1,, A Metin Gülmezoglu 2, Joshua P Vogel 3, Shivaprasad S Goudar 4, Annie McDougall 3, Manjunath S Somannavar 4, Sara Rushwan 2, Yeshita V Pujar 4, Umesh Charantimath 4, Anne Ammerdorffer 2, Meghan A Bohren 1
PMCID: PMC11500090  PMID: 39443672

Abstract

Systematic under-representation of pregnant women and gender diverse pregnant people in clinical research has prevented them from benefitting fairly from biomedical advances. The resulting lack of pharmacological safety and efficacy data leads to medicine discontinuation, sub-optimal dosing, and reliance on repurposed therapies. We identify four roadblocks to fair inclusion. First, investment and research are inhibited by protectionist attitudes among research gatekeepers who view pregnancy as a vulnerable state. Second, exclusion ignores human-specific biological variations affecting medication absorption and impacts on the pregnant body. Third, pregnant populations in low-and middle-income countries face a double disadvantage due to gender and location, despite bearing a disproportionate maternal mortality burden. Fourth, perspectives and experiences of pregnant populations are undervalued in clinical intervention design. We propose five actions to optimize fair inclusion: fostering reciprocal partnerships, prioritizing multi-disciplinary research, awareness-raising of the need for pharmaceutical innovation, conducting regulatory analyses, and promoting responsible inclusion over presumptive exclusion.

Subject terms: Drug development, Randomized controlled trials


Shankar et al. discuss how to better undertake research and assure health interests of pregnant women and gender diverse pregnant people. Their recommendations include growing research and regulatory partnerships and innovation, plus promoting responsible inclusion in place of presumptive exclusion.

Introduction

Maternal mortality remains a significant global problem1. Preventable and treatable direct causes of maternal death, such as postpartum hemorrhage and pre-eclampsia, continue to pose substantial, disproportionate burdens1, and are increasingly compounded by rises in co-morbidities2. Maternal complications can also impact fetal, newborn, and child outcomes by increasing the risk of growth restriction, stillbirth, preterm birth, low birth weight, and child mortality3. Between 2016 and 2020, declines in maternal mortality stagnated or mortality increased in 150 countries, whilst maternal mortality was reduced in only 31 countries1. In parallel, there is an under-representation of pregnant women and gender diverse pregnant people in biomedical research studies. This under-representation made headlines during the recent outbreaks of Zika in South America, Ebola in West Africa, and the COVID-19 pandemic4,5. Despite higher risk of severe illness, complications and mortality for both women and newborns, pregnant populations were systematically excluded from early vaccine trials and investigational treatments47.

The exclusion of pregnant populations from research is often justified on the grounds that they and their infants need to be protected from possible adverse effects. Consequently, many of the 250 million women8 who get pregnant each year are unable to access biomedical innovations that could maintain health throughout pre-conception, pregnancy, childbirth, and lactation periods. They also lack access to newly developed drugs, and instead rely on repurposed medications for prevention and treatment of many pregnancy-related complications. Even when treatments are available, pregnant populations often have to use sub-optimal doses or are uncertain about potential adverse side-effects9. Frequently, medications for pre-existing conditions are discontinued due to concerns the treatments might cause fetal harm9.

In this comment, we discuss how these profound health inequities have been sustained due to a long legacy of gender-biased health research (Fig. 1). We identify four critical roadblocks that must be overcome to better represent interests of pregnant women and gender diverse pregnant people in the global biomedical research agenda.

Fig. 1. Roadblocks to the fair inclusion of pregnant women and gender diverse pregnant people in biomedical research.

Fig. 1

This figure depicts four critical roadblocks that must be overcome to better represent research and health interests of pregnant women and gender diverse pregnant people, and a call to action to achieve fair inclusion.

At the outset we recognize that pregnancy capable people have diverse gender identities, and that research to-date has focused almost exclusively on the experiences of cisgender women. In this comment, we also want to emphasize how research remains bound in highly gendered and binary mindsets, where historically and to the present day, pregnant women’s health needs, choices and decisions are artificially constrained by patriarchal norms and customs. We have therefore taken a considered approach to our use of gendered language as follows. We use the terminology “pregnant women and gender diverse pregnant people” in reference to the research needs of pregnancy capable individuals. In doing so, we highlight that gender remains an important social determinant of health. We use the terminology “pregnant women” when referring to empirical or historical data where the focus has been on experiences of cisgender women, and/or, where we want to emphasize how the social construction of gender has contributed to patterns of bias in the ways in which clinical research has been conducted, as extrapolating this data to gender diverse pregnant populations would be inaccurate.

Protectionist mindset of pregnant women as vulnerable

The adverse consequences of using thalidomide and diethylstilbesterol during pregnancy demonstrated the potential ramifications of prescribing untested drugs to pregnant populations10,11. Critical repercussions included the notion that pregnant women are vulnerable and therefore need special protection. This led to regulations that restricted inclusion of pregnant women in research, which have been used to justify their systematic exclusion from research ever since12. However, to avoid similar future tragedies, it is important to undertake preclinical studies and also to include pregnant populations in early-phase clinical trials - with appropriate safeguards - to minimize the potential for harm13.

These regulatory responses and their consequences have also perpetuated gendered assumptions regarding the ability of pregnant women to protect their own health interests, or their capacity for voluntary and autonomous decision-making14. Such responses have resulted in inaction by public and private biomedical research organisations and limited advances that could improve health during pregnancy. The regulatory environment implies that the ethical and practical complexities of drug research in pregnancy are too difficult to navigate and hence do not warrant investment and innovation. Most concerningly, such a risk-averse approach has paradoxically shifted responsibility for ensuring appropriate therapeutic drug use from closely monitored clinical trials to everyday clinical care. This has left millions of pregnant women and gender diverse pregnant people and their healthcare providers to make therapeutic decisions with incomplete or non-existent efficacy and safety data.

The attitude that pregnant women are vulnerable has also influenced other research and development gatekeepers, including institutional ethics committees that often take a paternalistic, protectionist approach15. One visible manifestation of this is through unequal expectations for researchers to justify inclusion or exclusion of pregnant participants. For example, a review found that no psychiatry trials evaluating pharmacological interventions included pregnant women and only 9% justified reasons for exclusion16. Ethical assessments of risks and benefits often view fetal safety and maternal health as disconnected, with the latter considered as an adjunct (except for life-threatening conditions), despite the intrinsic connectedness of maternal-fetal health and well-being. In a protection-by-exclusion approach, pregnant women and gender diverse pregnant people are denied the rights of autonomy and self-determination to make voluntary and informed decisions about the benefits of research to their own health in relation to fetal risks, and vice versa.

Decades of advocacy have led to conceptual shifts in regulatory mandates17 and among professional organizations to explicitly recognize the research needs of pregnant populations, and formally withdraw their inclusion as a vulnerable category by Health and Human Services regulations in the United States18. However, the impact of decades of exclusion has been slow to shift, as evidenced from continued stagnation in investment and research19, barring some notable exceptions20,21.

Critical knowledge gaps resulting from sex-and gender-biased research

The ongoing inequitable access of pregnant populations to the health benefits of scientific advances is an often-overlooked manifestation of both sex and gender biases more broadly present in health research. Pregnancy is a unique physiological and immunological state, where the body undergoes substantial changes to support fetal development, birth, and lactation22. These adaptations have important implications for how medications are absorbed, distributed, and excreted (pharmacokinetics, PK), affecting their actions on the body (pharmacodynamics, PD), and consequently their efficacy and safety23. The approach of routinely excluding pregnant populations in basic, clinical, and translational research with humans, and relying on extrapolated PK/PD data from non-pregnant populations or pregnant animal models, overlooks critical species-specific biological variation through the life course. This results in inadequate and imprecise data to inform safety or dosing recommendations during pregnancy. Overwhelmingly, teratogenicity data are obtained from a patchwork of observational data that relies on accidental exposures to drugs or vaccines (e.g., the first COVID-19 vaccinations24), or post-marketing pregnancy exposure registry data25. These data are not optimal from clinical, methodological, nor ethical standpoints. They are prone to bias, typically not powered for statistical rigor, lack regulatory guidance, opportunistically mitigate accountability for poor outcomes, and capitalize on the precarious therapeutic positions of pregnant populations.

Pharmaceutical innovation for pregnancy-specific conditions also suffers from limited funding and research. Pregnancy symptoms of nausea and vomiting affect 70% of pregnant women26, with the more severe hyperemesis gravidarum affecting 10% of pregnant women27. Despite high prevalence, associated physical and psychological distress lasting for weeks or months, and adverse perinatal outcomes, there is little recognition of the toll, and limited high-quality evidence exists to support any type of intervention, pharmaceutical or otherwise28. Similarly, pre-eclampsia accounts for nearly 15% of maternal deaths1; however the complex pathophysiology underlying cause and progression of this multi-organ disorder is poorly understood, with no curative treatments29. Currently preventative treatments for pre-eclampsia only include repurposed aspirin and calcium as prophylactic interventions for certain, high-risk pregnant populations30,31. Drug pipeline analyses suggest that new medications to slow or halt pre-eclampsia progression will not be available soon32.

Sources of these critical knowledge gaps are related to stringent regulatory requirements and poor market incentives. There are high potential pharmaceutical liability and reputational risks, coupled with lower profitability33. Pregnancy’s short duration over the life course and consequently limited timeframe for use of these drugs likewise detracts from investment. In addition to these barriers, there are the wider gender biases present in research. These include: whether, which, and how sex-related variations are studied, the prioritization of clinical conditions for pharmaceutical research and development (reflected by under-investment in health conditions such as endometriosis34), and which population groups either benefit from or are left behind in basic, clinical, and translational research (e.g., preference for male animal models in pre-clinical research35). These biases have further relegated research with pregnant populations and on new maternal therapeutics to being viewed as unfeasible33.

The double disadvantage of pregnant women in low-and middle-income countries

Pregnant populations in low-and middle-income countries experience a disproportionate burden of maternal mortality1. Their exclusion from biomedical research represents a double disadvantage as both their gender and country of residence contribute to their reduced ability to make choices and act independently, and fewer opportunities to participate in and benefit from therapeutic advances.

Among other aspects, their geographical disadvantage is underpinned by structural determinants, such as the socio-economic and political factors that shape power asymmetries36, in which research institutions and funders in high-income countries have disproportionate influence on the biomedical research agendas in low-and middle-income countries. This includes determining which health conditions and therapeutics are studied, what types of research are funded, and whether and how societal benefits of these interventions are realized in the countries where trials are conducted. These realities give limited opportunity for locally driven priority setting, research, and program implementation.

Since 2000, maternal health has benefitted from becoming a visible global health priority as one of the Millennium Development Goals. One measure of research effort is the growing number of trials addressing behavioral, clinical, and health system factors to promote maternal and newborn health in low-and middle-income countries37. Yet only one-quarter of these trials address major causes of maternal mortality, and trial questions are not representative of epidemiological burdens or priorities37. For example, while pre-existing maternal health conditions such as cardiac and endocrine diseases contribute to 14% of maternal deaths, only 4% of trials address these causes37. Pharmaceutical innovations for the maternal/fetal-infant dyad should be designed and implemented in-context and in-line with public health burden, accounting for health system characteristics, and local political, social and cultural determinants of health and well-being. The HIV field and successes of antiretroviral therapies to prevent mother-to-child transmission has demonstrated that fair inclusion of the maternal-fetal/infant dyad into trial research is feasible and enormously beneficial17. There is much that can be learned from these successes and applied to the broader field of maternal health.

Undervaluation of perspectives and experiences of pregnant populations

Biomedical research has historically undervalued the expertise of lived experience, including in maternal health38. Few pregnancy-related trials are informed by the perspectives of people targeted by or delivering the intervention39. Moreover, despite the potential for formative research and process evaluations to elicit important insights into what does and does not work, and why, these methods are not consistently used alongside trials. When they are, they can reveal critical information about the intersecting influences of the structural determinants of health. For example, a qualitative study conducted alongside a trial to introduce community-based screening and treatment for malaria in Benin found that fears of trial procedures and high loss-to-follow up was explained by the convergence of social, political, health system, and trial-related factors40.

Currently, more is known about barriers and facilitators that prevent the inclusion of pregnant populations in research, but less about the perspectives and experiences of pregnant women and gender diverse pregnant people, families, and healthcare providers that can limit their participation in studies for which they are eligible. This is especially the case, but not limited to low-and middle-income countries that experience the highest burden of maternal ill-health. Key questions that must be asked include: How do these stakeholders understand biomedical research in their contexts, including therapeutic uncertainty and hope? How are risks and benefits to the maternal-fetal dyad balanced? How do gendered power relations within the health system and home environments affect research participation? To begin answering these questions, the ongoing Accelerating Innovation for Mothers-Gender (AIM-Gender) collaboration41 has undertaken an evidence synthesis42, with ongoing qualitative research in India and Nigeria to generate critical evidence in support of genuine and ethically-informed engagement of pregnant populations in research. Further similar research is warranted alongside studies which include these populations.

Our call to action

A substantial unfinished agenda to improve participation of pregnant populations in biomedical research exists. We call on the regulatory, research and development, innovation, and global health communities to act now to eliminate this harmful gender bias that negatively impacts maternal health. We propose the following actions. First, reciprocal partnerships must grow between and among research and regulatory stakeholders across all geographies, focusing on shared leadership and strengthening collaborative research capacity. Second, multi-disciplinary research designed to answer complex questions about how to safely encourage participation of pregnant populations across all stages of biomedical research must be prioritized, particularly in settings with the greatest maternal mortality burden. Third, awareness must be raised among upstream and downstream stakeholders of the value and ethical imperative of new research and development knowledge to improve maternal health through pharmaceutical innovation. Fourth, funders, regulators and ethics committees must reorientate their focus to responsibly include, rather than presumptively exclude. Justifications should be given and scientifically defended when pregnant populations are excluded from interventional research that has potential for benefit. Such interventional research must include treatments for all conditions that affect pregnant populations, not only pregnancy-specific conditions. Fifth, regulatory analyses are required in low-and middle-income countries to examine existing bottlenecks preventing equitable inclusion of pregnant populations in biomedical research. This must then culminate in implementable recommendations.

Collective and simultaneous action holds great potential to advance the health entitlements of pregnant women and gender diverse pregnant people. Tackling these entrenched gender inequities affecting biomedical research and development via reciprocal partnerships, multi-disciplinary research, pharmaceutical innovation, responsible inclusion, and alleviating regulatory bottlenecks has the potential to transform the health and well-being for all.

Supplementary information

Peer Review File (4MB, pdf)

Acknowledgements

We thank Thiago Melo Santos for developing the infographic accompanying the Comment. The activities in this publication were supported by funding from MSD, through its MSD for Mothers initiative and are the sole responsibility of the authors. MSD for Mothers is an initiative of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, U.S.A.

Author contributions

M.S. and M.A.B. conceived the article. M.S. prepared the first draft and subsequent revisions with input from M.A.B. A.M.G., J.P.V., S.S.G., A.M.cD., M.S.S., S.R., Y.V.P., U.C. and A.A. critically reviewed the manuscript including all revisions. All authors agreed on the final version for submission to the journal.

Peer review

Peer review information

Communications Medicine thanks Annie Lyerly and Pamela Stratton for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Change history

12/6/2024

A Correction to this paper has been published: 10.1038/s43856-024-00689-3

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s43856-024-00629-1.

References

  • 1.WHO. Trends in Maternal Mortality 2000 to 2020: 2020: Estimates by WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, World Bank Group and UNDESA/Population Division (World Health Organization, Geneva, 2023). [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Beeson, J. G., Homer, C. S., Morgan, C. & Menendez, C. Multiple Morbidities in Pregnancy: Time for Research, Innovation, and Action. pp. e1002665 (Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA, 2018). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Hunter, P. J. et al. Biological and Pathological Mechanisms Leading to the Birth of a Small Vulnerable Newborn. Lancet401, 1720–1732 (2023). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Minchin, J., Harris, G. H., Baumann, S. & Smith, E. R. Exclusion of Pregnant People from Emergency Vaccine Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trial Protocols and Reporting from 2009 to 2019. Vaccine41, 5159–5181 (2023). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Taylor, M. M. et al. Inclusion of Pregnant Women in COVID-19 Treatment Trials: A Review and Global Call to Action. Lancet Glob. Health9, e366–e371 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Rubin, R. Pregnant People’s Paradox-Excluded from Vaccine Trials Despite Having a Higher Risk of COVID-19 Complications. JAMA325, 1027–1028 (2021). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Schwartz, D. A. Maternal and Infant Death and the rVSV-ZEBOV Vaccine through Three Recent Ebola Virus Epidemics-West Africa, Drc Equateur and DRC Kivu: 4 Years of Excluding Pregnant and Lactating Women and Their Infants from Immunization. Curr. Tropical Med. Rep.6, 213–222 (2019). [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Bearak, J. et al. Unintended Pregnancy and Abortion by Income, Region, and the Legal Status of Abortion: Estimates from a Comprehensive Model for 1990–2019. Lancet Glob. Health8, e1152–e1161 (2020). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Lyerly, A. D., Little, M. O. & Faden, R. The Second Wave: Toward Responsible Inclusion of Pregnant Women in Research. Int. J. Fem. Approaches Bioeth.1, 5–22 (2008). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Vargesson, N. Thalidomide-Induced Teratogenesis: History and Mechanisms. Birth Defects Res. Part C Embryo Today. Rev.105, 140–156 (2015). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Giusti, R. M., Iwamoto, K. & Hatch, E. E. Diethylstilbestrol Revisited: A Review of the Long-Term Health Effects. Ann. Intern Med.122, 778–788 (1995). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Taylor, C. Gender Equity in Research. J. Women’s Health3, 143–153 (1994). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Waggoner, M. R. & Lyerly, A. D. Clinical Trials in Pregnancy and the “Shadows of Thalidomide”: Revisiting the Legacy of Frances Kelsey. Contemp. Clin. Trials119, 106806 (2022). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ballantyne, A. Women in Research: Historical Exclusion, Current Challenges and Future Trends. In The Routledge Handbook of Feminist Bioethics, 251–264 (Routledge, 2022).
  • 15.Friesen, P., Gelinas, L., Kirby, A., Strauss, D. H. & Bierer, B. E. IRBs and the Protection-Inclusion Dilemma: Finding a Balance. Am. J. Bioeth.23, 75–88 (2023). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Leung, F. et al. Eligibility and Enrollment of Pregnant and Breastfeeding Women in Psychiatry Randomized Controlled Trials. Arch. Womens. Ment. Health26, 353–359 (2023). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Lyerly, A. D. et al. Ending the Evidence Gap for Pregnancy, HIV and Co-Infections: Ethics Guidance from the Phases Project. J. Int. AIDS Soc.24, e25846 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.US Department of Health and Human Services. Protection of Human Subjects. Part 46 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations (45 CFR 46) (2018).
  • 19.Thiele, L., Thompson, J., Pruszynski, J. & Spong, C. Y. Gaps in Evidence-Based Medicine: Underrepresented Populations Still Excluded from Research Trials Following 2018 Recommendations from the Health and Human Services Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant Women and Lactating Women. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.227, 908–909 (2022). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Knight, M., Morris, R. K., Furniss, J. & Chappell, L. C. Include Pregnant Women in Research-Particularly COVID-19 Research. BMJ370, m3305 (2020). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Malhamé, I., Hardy, E., Cheng, M. P., Tong, S. Y. & Bowen, A. C. Walking the Walk to Include Pregnant Participants in Non-Obstetric Clinical Trials: Insights from the SNAP Trial. pp. 3–4 (SAGE Publications Sage UK, London, England, 2023). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kazma, J. M., van den Anker, J., Allegaert, K., Dallmann, A. & Ahmadzia, H. K. Anatomical and Physiological Alterations of Pregnancy. J. Pharmacokinet. Pharmacodyn.47, 271–285 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Stock, S. J. & Norman, J. E. Medicines in Pregnancy. F1000Research. 8, F1000 (2019). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 24.Hillson, K. et al. Fertility Rates and Birth Outcomes after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) Vaccination. Lancet398, 1683–1684 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Green, D. J., Park, K., Bhatt-Mehta, V., Snyder, D. & Burckart, G. J. Regulatory Considerations for the Mother, Fetus and Neonate in Fetal Pharmacology Modeling. Front. Pediatrics.9, 698611 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Fejzo, M. S. et al. Nausea and Vomiting of Pregnancy and Hyperemesis Gravidarum. Nat. Rev. Dis. Prim.5, 62 (2019). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Liu, C. et al. Emerging Progress in Nausea and Vomiting of Pregnancy and Hyperemesis Gravidarum: Challenges and Opportunities. Front. Med.8, 809270 (2022). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Boelig, R. C. et al. Interventions for Treating Hyperemesis Gravidarum. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.2016, CD010607 (2016). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Chappell, L. C., Cluver, C. A., Kingdom, J. & Tong, S. Pre-Eclampsia. Lancet398, 341–354 (2021). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.World Health Organization. WHO Recommendations on Antiplatelet Agents for the Prevention of Pre-Eclampsia. (World Health Organization, Geneva, 2021). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.World Health Organization. WHO Recommendation on Calcium Supplementation before Pregnancy for the Prevention of Pre-Eclampsia and Its Complications. (World Health Organization, Geneva, 2020). Report No.: 9240003118. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.McDougall, A. R. et al. Systematic Evaluation of the Pre-Eclampsia Drugs, Dietary Supplements and Biologicals Pipeline Using Target Product Profiles. BMC Med.20, 1–12 (2022). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Concept Foundation. Market Challenges and Potential Solutions for the Development and Introduction of Medicines for Pregnancy Specific Conditions (Concept Foundation, 2021).
  • 34.Viganò, P., Casalechi, M. & Dolmans, M.-M. European Union Underinvestment in Endometriosis Research. J. Endometr. Uterine Disord.5, 100058 (2024). [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Mauvais-Jarvis, F., Arnold, A. P. & Reue, K. A Guide for the Design of Pre-Clinical Studies on Sex Differences in Metabolism. Cell Metab.25, 1216–1230 (2017). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Martins, A. Reimagining Equity: Redressing Power Imbalances between the Global North and the Global South. Gend. Dev.28, 135–153 (2020). [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Eggleston, A. J. et al. Randomised Trials in Maternal and Perinatal Health in Low and Middle-Income Countries from 2010 to 2019: A Systematic Scoping Review. BMJ Open.12, e059473 (2022). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Abimbola, S. When Dignity Meets Evidence. Lancet401, 340–341 (2023). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Bohren, M. A., Berger, B. O., Munthe-Kaas, H. & Tunçalp, Ö. Perceptions and Experiences of Labour Companionship: A Qualitative Evidence Synthesis. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.3, CD012449 (2019). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Compaoré, A. et al. Fear and Rumours Regarding Placental Biopsies in a Malaria-in-Pregnancy Trial in Benin. Malar. J.17, 1–8 (2018). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Concept Foundation. Aim: Accelerating Innovation for Mothers 2023. Available from: https://www.conceptfoundation.org/accelerating-innovation-for-mothers/aim-gender/ (2023).
  • 42.Shankar, M. et al. Factors Influencing the Participation of Pregnant and Lactating Women in Clinical Trials: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review. PLoS Med.21, e1004405 (2024). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Peer Review File (4MB, pdf)

Articles from Communications Medicine are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES