Curious Femme

New research reveals significant gender differences in autoimmune disease misdiagnosis. But the findings raise a much bigger question: after decades of women reporting that their symptoms are dismissed, why are diagnostic inequalities and gaps in women’s healthcare still so difficult to resolve?

By Curious Femme | 13 October 2026

Women have been saying this for years

“It’s all in your head.”

Four words that many women recognise, not necessarily because a healthcare professional used that exact phrase, but because they recognise the experience behind it.

The pain is attributed to stress. The exhaustion becomes anxiety. The unexplained symptoms are interpreted as psychological.

Sometimes the explanation is correct. Sometimes physical and psychological conditions coexist.

But sometimes there is an underlying physical illness that has not yet been identified.

And for the woman experiencing those symptoms, repeated appointments without answers can become an exhausting cycle of uncertainty, frustration and feeling unheard.

Now, research involving more than 6,600 people with autoimmune diseases provides further evidence that women and men can experience markedly different diagnostic journeys.

The findings deserve attention in their own right.

But they also raise uncomfortable questions about clinical assumptions, research priorities, healthcare investment and why women’s experiences have taken so long to receive the attention they warrant.

What the new autoimmune research found

Researchers from the University of Cambridge and the University of East Anglia examined the reported diagnostic experiences of 6,607 people with autoimmune diseases.

Published in eClinicalMedicine in October 2026, the international cross-sectional study identified substantial differences between female and male respondents.

The findings included:

• 43% of female respondents reported that symptoms subsequently associated with their autoimmune disease had previously been attributed incorrectly to psychiatric causes, compared with 33% of male respondents.
• 34% of females reported a psychosomatic misdiagnosis, compared with 22% of males.
• After statistical adjustment, females had 74% higher odds of reporting psychosomatic misdiagnosis.
• The most commonly reported time from symptom onset to diagnosis was one to two years among females, compared with less than three months among males.

These differences are significant.

However, they need to be interpreted accurately.

The research examined patients’ reported experiences. It did not independently establish that every previous psychiatric or psychosomatic diagnosis was clinically incorrect.

Nor does it prove that gender discrimination caused each individual diagnostic delay.

The study’s observational design and participant recruitment also mean that its percentages should not automatically be applied to everyone living with autoimmune disease.

Nevertheless, the findings identify an important pattern that warrants further investigation.

And the pattern is particularly concerning because many autoimmune diseases disproportionately affect women.

When physical symptoms become psychological explanations

Autoimmune diseases arise when the immune system attacks the body’s own tissues.

They include conditions such as systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis and autoimmune thyroid disease.

Their symptoms can be difficult to interpret, particularly during the early stages.

Fatigue, pain, sleep disturbance, cognitive difficulties and mood changes may occur across a range of physical and mental health conditions.

A patient experiencing these symptoms might have a mental health condition, a physical illness or both.

This is precisely why careful differential diagnosis matters.

The problem is not that clinicians consider psychological explanations.

The problem arises when an initial psychological explanation becomes so dominant that alternative possibilities are no longer adequately investigated.

This can resemble diagnostic overshadowing: a process in which one diagnosis or assumption obscures recognition of another condition.

A woman may be anxious because she is physically unwell.

She may develop depression while coping with chronic pain.

She may experience both psychological distress and an autoimmune disorder.

None of these possibilities invalidates the others.

Yet when the psychological explanation becomes the endpoint rather than one element of an ongoing assessment, the consequences can be serious.

The frustration of not being believed

There is a psychological dimension to being repeatedly told that nothing physically significant has been identified.

Uncertainty can be distressing.

Repeatedly seeking help without receiving an explanation may increase anxiety, undermine confidence and damage trust in healthcare.

A patient may begin questioning her own judgement.

She may hesitate before booking another appointment, worrying that she will once again be perceived as anxious or exaggerating.

She may feel compelled to demonstrate that her symptoms are sufficiently serious to deserve further investigation.

For some patients, receiving an eventual physical diagnosis brings relief alongside anger about the time it took to obtain one.

It is important not to assume that every diagnostic delay could have been prevented. Some diseases are genuinely difficult to identify, and diagnostic tests may initially be inconclusive.

But clinical uncertainty should not mean abandoning investigation, particularly when symptoms persist or change.

Patients need clear explanations, appropriate follow-up and opportunities for reassessment.

Not knowing what is wrong is different from establishing that nothing is wrong.

That distinction matters.

Women’s health and the legacy of unequal research

The new findings also raise a wider issue: the historical representation of women in medical research.

For much of modern medical history, some research programmes excluded women or inadequately examined differences between female and male participants.

Concerns about hormonal variation, pregnancy and potential fetal risks contributed to restrictive research practices.

These exclusions were not universal, and research standards have changed substantially. Women now participate in a wide range of clinical studies, and researchers increasingly recognise the importance of sex-specific analysis.

Nevertheless, historical gaps in knowledge can have lasting consequences.

If research does not adequately examine how conditions present in different populations, diagnostic guidance may fail to capture clinically important variations.

If trials do not report outcomes by sex where relevant, important differences in treatment response or adverse effects may be missed.

And if conditions affecting women receive insufficient research attention relative to their burden, progress in diagnosis and treatment may be slower than it could be.

This does not mean that every women’s health condition is underfunded or that a single funding comparison can explain diagnostic inequality.

It means research investment should be assessed systematically, transparently and in relation to unmet clinical need.

What is Britain actually spending on women’s health?

The UK has made identifiable investments in women’s healthcare.

In 2022, the government published England’s first Women’s Health Strategy.

In March 2023, it announced £25 million to support the expansion of women’s health hubs over two years.

These services were intended to improve access to care for menstrual problems, contraception, pelvic pain, menopause and other needs.

NHS England subsequently set out expectations for integrated care boards to establish and develop women’s health hubs, with £595,000 allocated to each board across the relevant funding period.

These are genuine policy and funding commitments.

But their existence does not, by itself, establish that provision is adequate.

The £25 million allocation supported a particular service initiative. It was not the total amount spent on women’s healthcare or women’s health research.

A meaningful assessment of funding adequacy requires much more information:

• How much research funding is allocated to conditions that predominantly affect women?
• How does that investment compare with disease prevalence, severity and unmet need?
• Are services sufficiently funded to provide timely diagnosis and treatment?
• How much variation exists between regions?
• What measurable improvements have resulted from the investment?

Without consistent answers, it is difficult for the public to assess whether funding commitments are proportionate to the problems they are intended to address.

A revealing answer from Parliament

In July 2026, Labour MP Leigh Ingham asked the Department of Health and Social Care how many integrated care boards with women’s health hubs were delivering all eight core services specified by NHS England.

The question also asked whether the department would publish the locations and service offers of individual hubs.

The government’s response was revealing.

It stated that information about the number of hubs and their services was held locally by integrated care boards.

The department said it had no plans to publish that information centrally.

The response also outlined a shift towards neighbourhood women’s health services, with greater emphasis on access, outcomes and inequalities.

That may prove beneficial.

But the absence of a centrally published picture of existing provision creates a legitimate accountability question.

How easily can patients, researchers or policymakers compare access to women’s healthcare across England if basic information about available services is not routinely published nationally?

Funding announcements are important.

But so are transparent implementation data, service availability and patient outcomes.

The renewed Women’s Health Strategy: progress or another promise?

In April 2026, the government published a renewed Women’s Health Strategy for England.

The strategy sets out a ten-year approach intended to strengthen women’s involvement in healthcare decisions and improve access to services.

It includes proposals concerning gynaecological care, patient experience and the organisation of women’s health services.

These commitments should be acknowledged.

It would be inaccurate to suggest that governments have taken no action on women’s health.

The more important question is whether the policies will deliver measurable improvements.

Will women with persistent unexplained symptoms receive appropriate investigation sooner?

Will healthcare professionals have sufficient appointment time, training and access to specialist advice?

Will patients experience fewer avoidable diagnostic delays?

And will research investment address important gaps in understanding conditions that disproportionately affect women?

A strategy is a statement of intention.

Its success must ultimately be judged through implementation and outcomes.

Why funding and clinical attitudes must be examined together

It would be too simplistic to attribute every diagnostic inequality to inadequate funding.

Clinical decision-making is influenced by many factors, including symptoms, available evidence, professional training, appointment time, diagnostic capacity and patient-clinician communication.

Research funding is only one part of that picture.

But the different parts interact.

Where diagnostic services are stretched, patients may wait longer for specialist assessments.

Where research evidence is incomplete, clinicians may have fewer reliable tools for identifying atypical presentations.

Where professional assumptions influence how symptoms are interpreted, an otherwise available diagnostic pathway may not be pursued.

And where patients feel dismissed, they may lose confidence in returning for further assessment.

Addressing these problems therefore requires more than awareness campaigns.

It requires investment, evaluation, clinical education and systems that allow diagnoses to be reconsidered.

Mental health should never be used to dismiss physical illness

There is an important distinction to make.

Psychological distress is real.

Mental health conditions can produce substantial physical symptoms, and effective psychological treatment can be appropriate and beneficial.

Equally, physical illnesses can produce symptoms that resemble psychiatric conditions.

The two categories are not mutually exclusive.

A person can have anxiety and lupus.

A person can experience depression and thyroid disease.

A person can have chronic pain and psychological distress arising from that pain.

Good healthcare requires the capacity to recognise these possibilities together.

The problem is not the recognition of mental health.

It is the premature assumption that a psychological explanation removes the need to consider physical causes.

For professionals working in mental health, this is particularly important.

A biopsychosocial approach should expand clinical understanding, not narrow it.

What needs to change?

The latest research provides a compelling reason to strengthen several aspects of clinical practice and healthcare accountability.

1. Diagnostic uncertainty must be communicated clearly.

Patients should understand what has been considered, what remains uncertain and when further assessment may be appropriate.

2. Persistent symptoms require meaningful follow-up.

An initial explanation should remain open to reconsideration when new symptoms develop or existing symptoms continue.

3. Clinical education should address premature psychological attribution.

Training should encourage practitioners to recognise how assumptions, including those related to sex and gender, may influence clinical reasoning.

4. Research funding should be more transparent.

Government and research funders should publish accessible information about investment in conditions affecting women, including how priorities relate to disease burden and unmet need.

5. Women’s health services should be evaluated through outcomes.

The public needs to know whether investment improves access, diagnostic timelines, treatment and patient experiences.

6. Patients must be treated as partners in clinical decision-making.

Listening does not mean accepting every proposed diagnosis without investigation. It means taking reported symptoms seriously and explaining clinical reasoning respectfully.

These changes would benefit all patients.

Conclusion: women have been telling us this for decades

For many women, the findings from Cambridge and the University of East Anglia will not feel surprising.

They will recognise the frustration of persistent symptoms, repeated appointments and explanations that never quite account for what they are experiencing.

The study does not prove that every woman who reports feeling dismissed has experienced clinical negligence or discrimination.

But it does identify substantial differences in reported diagnostic experiences between women and men with autoimmune diseases.

Those differences demand investigation.

Britain has developed women’s health strategies and allocated funding to improve services. The challenge now is to demonstrate that these commitments translate into earlier diagnoses, better care and greater confidence among patients.

We also need greater transparency about research investment and the services women can actually access.

Because the question is no longer simply whether women feel unheard.

It is whether healthcare systems are willing to examine the evidence, confront gaps in provision and make the changes needed.

Women should not have to prove that their suffering is real before it is taken seriously.

And nobody should have to choose between having their mental health recognised and having their physical health properly investigated.

Sources and further reading

University of Cambridge (2026). Females with autoimmune diseases ‘less likely to be believed’ than males and face longer diagnostic delays. 12 October.
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/females-with-autoimmune-diseases-less-likely-to-be-believed-than-males-and-face-longer-diagnostic

The Guardian (2026). Women more likely to be told autoimmune conditions are psychological. 13 October.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/oct/13/women-autoimmune-conditions-psychological-misdiagnosis-cambridge-study

Department of Health and Social Care (2022). First Women’s Health Strategy for England to tackle gender health gap.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/first-womens-health-strategy-for-england-to-tackle-gender-health-gap

Department of Health and Social Care (2023). £25 million for women’s health hub expansion.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/25-million-for-womens-health-hub-expansion

NHS England (2024). Women’s health hubs.
https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/womens-health-hubs/

Department of Health and Social Care (2026). Renewed Women’s Health Strategy for England.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/renewed-womens-health-strategy-for-england

UK Parliament (2026). Written question 12550: Women’s health hubs. Answered 16 July.
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2026-06-23/12550/