Observational studyHealth research policy and systems2026
Gender disparities in securing national clinical research program (PHRC-N) funding in France: a retrospective analysis of the 2022 campaign.
Observational study in Health research policy and systems, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite 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.
methodsThis 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.
resultsOut 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).
conclusionsThere 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.