Work

Gender disparities in securing national clinical research program (PHRC-N) funding in France: a retrospective analysis of the 2022 campaign

Year: 2026

Type: article

Abstract: 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.

Source: Health Research Policy and Systems

DOI: 10.1186/s12961-026-01450-z

Authors: Solène Mathieu, Constant Vinatier, Florian Naudet, Jean-Sébastien Allain