Gender disparities in securing national clinical research program (PHRC-N) funding in France: a retrospective analysis of the 2022 campaign
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 9, 2026

A Novel Method for Involving Women of Color at High Risk for Preterm Birth in Research Priority Setting
Published on: January 12, 2018
Solène Mathieu1,2, Constant Vinatier3, Florian Naudet3,4
1Groupe Hospitalier Bretagne Sud, Lorient, France.
Background:
Despite progress in gender parity in medicine, women still face challenges in attaining senior academic and clinical roles. This study examines potential gender bias in awarding academic funding from the French National Clinical Research Program (PHRC-N), one of the main funders for clinical research in France.
Methods:
This retrospective observational study analysed 2022 PHRC-N campaign applications. Anonymized data were provided by the French ministry of health, including investigator demographics (gender, academic rank, location, prior funding) and project characteristics (discipline, number of centre, budget, sample size). Outcomes examined included funding success rates from initial application to award, amounts requested and amounts awarded. Statistical analyses followed a protocol registered prospectively with univariate and multivariate logistic regression.
Results:
Out of 321 eligible applications, 83/321 (26%) were led by women. Among these, 102/321 (32%) received funding, amounting to a total of 75 046 900 euros (i.e., 77 375 117 USD), with no significant difference observed between male (77/238, 32%) and female investigators (25/83, 34%; p = 0.707). Pre-selection rates and funding amounts awarded (781 243 ± 375 562 and 715 377 ± 251 307 euros for male and female investigators, respectively) also indicated no gender disparity. These findings remained consistent in multivariate analyses, which revealed higher success rates for projects led from the Île-de-France region (OR 1.79 [1.07-3.01], p = 0.027) and large-scale studies involving over 1000 participants (OR 3.83 [1.32-11.87], p < 0.016).
Conclusions:
There was an underrepresentation of women as principal investigators at the submission stage. However, no evidence of gender bias was found in PHRC funding outcomes for 2022. The lack of evidence for gender bias in funding outcomes should be interpreted with caution due to limited statistical power. Future research should examine long-term trends and broader funding programs to evaluate potential disparities in research opportunities and outcomes.
More Related Videos
10:23Single-cell Gene Expression Using Multiplex RT-qPCR to Characterize Heterogeneity of Rare Lymphoid Populations
Published on: January 19, 2017
07:52A Human Blood-Brain Interface Model to Study Barrier Crossings by Pathogens or Medicines and Their Interactions with the Brain
Published on: April 9, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
Clinical Trials: Overview
Healthcare Agencies II
Parish nursing is a growing specialty nursing profession that focuses on holistic healthcare, health promotion, and illness prevention. It blends professional nursing practice with a health ministry, focusing on health and healing within the context of a Christian community. Parish nurses serve as health educators, referral sources,...
Bias in Epidemiological Studies
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Hazard Ratio
For example, in a clinical trial...