Both the WHO mortality database and the Global Cancer Observatory database were selected for analysis due to the relative comprehensiveness of data they provide for conditions. The Global Cancer Observatory registry collects the most comprehensive cancer data, while the WHO mortality database covers other conditions completely. However, it is important to note challenges in both. The WHO mortality database has limited LMIC and LIC data, providing an incomplete view of the global condition-related mortality. On the contrary, the Global Cancer Observatory database does not capture historical data, indicating a limited view of how mortality related to cancer has changed over time. It is also important to note the differences in methodology between databases. The WHO mortality dashboard relies on data provided by civil registries submitted by countries, without adjustments for completeness. In 2001, the WHO developed the new (WHO World Standard) standard population, considering a revised reflection of the world population today. It is important to note the use of different methodologies for standardizing populations in the age-standardized mortality rates across the WHO dashboard and the global CAN database. These methodologies were retained by the authors, and were used as comparatives when understanding mortality for different conditions. 2.3.1 Metric 4: Research funds Definition: Comparison of research funding amount relative to burden for conditions Source: World RePORT database, Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) Period: 2019–2023 A metric to track research funding in relation to the disability burden is “dollar per DALY”: the ratio of total global research dollars allocated to a specific condition and the number of DALYs attributed to that condition worldwide. This metric may have implications for efficacy. Funding attributed to conditions can support increased investment in new therapies, studying the effectiveness of therapies and evidence on their adoption in different care settings. It also demonstrates funding priorities over time, and how conditions with significant burdens are supported. This analysis compared the cumulative funding from 2019 to 2023 (the past five years) related to a condition, compared to the condition’s burden, measured in DALYs. This may help reach an understanding of how funding and resource allocation is distributed globally, compared to the burden a disease carries for populations, and allow a comparison between conditions. Data captured for funding relating to conditions is derived from the World RePORT database, a global database tracking research initiatives and funding from national and international institutions over the past eight years. While a comprehensive number of institutions are tracked in the database, the database does not capture every grant and funding allocation for conditions. Further, many of the institutions are based in high-income regions. Although funding from these institutions can be allocated to other regions outside of high-income countries (HICs), it is possible that funding in other regions is less comprehensively accounted for given research institution priorities, and the presence of local funders who are not included in this database. Additionally, to assess funding by condition, initiatives were searched for on the World RePORT database in June 2024. Initiatives were identified based on the inclusion of the condition in the initiative abstract or title. This means that for some initiatives allocated across multiple conditions, initiatives and the funding for these initiatives are counted in more than one condition. An example is maternal health conditions, for which initiatives may be allocated across maternal hypertension, post- partum haemorrhage, maternal sepsis and other specific maternal health disorders. While this leads to double counting in some cases, the inclusion of conditions in the abstract or title of the initiative is still important to reflect when tracking the closing of the gap. By mentioning the condition somewhere in the research, awareness is further drawn to that condition. This is particularly relevant for women’s health conditions, for which stigma is often high and understanding of the disease can be low. Allocating increased funding for women’s health conditions, whether initiatives focused specifically on the biological manifestation of the disease or those targeting populations with the disease, could contribute to the closing of the gap by increasing awareness and understanding.2.3 Efficacy gap metrics Blueprint to Close the Women’s Health Gap: How to Improve Lives and Economies for All 41

Blueprint to Close the Women%E2%80%99s Health Gap 2025