Introduction

Women’s health in Poland has evolved in the context of successive political, socioeconomic and epidemiological transitions that affected the entire population. In the interwar and early post-war periods, women’s health was strongly affected by poverty, food insecurity, overcrowded housing, poor sanitation, phy­sically demanding work, limited access to physicians and a high burden of communicable diseases, parti­cularly tuberculosis. War and occupation intensified these risks through mortality, displacement, trauma and the destruction of health and social infrastructure. Post-war public-health reforms, including infectious-disease control, vaccination, mate­rnal and child care and expansion of basic medical services, improved population health but did not eliminate regional, rural–urban or gendered inequalities.

Over the last century, improvements in living standards, education, healthcare access and social policy have fundamentally changed the determinants of wo­men’s health. However, the dominant health threats have shifted rather than disappeared. From the 1960s onward, Poland gradually moved from a profile dominated by undernutrition, poor living conditions and infectious diseases toward non-communicable diseases (NCDs), including cardiovascular diseases, cancers, chronic respiratory diseases and diabetes. This transition was linked to industrialisation, environmental exposures, changes in diet and work patterns, tobacco smoking, alcohol consumption and psychosocial stress. Cardiovascular diseases and cancers remain the leading causes of death in Poland, while behavioural risks continue to contribute to preventable mortality [1, 2].

Women’s health should therefore be analysed not only as a biological category but also through social, environmental and healthcare-related determinants. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), health is shaped by social and economic conditions, the physical environment, individual characteristics and behaviours and access to health services [3]. Lalonde’s framework similarly identifies lifestyle, environment, biological factors and healthcare organisation as interacting fields influencing health outcomes [4]. In this review, these determinants are interpreted through a gender-sensitive lens, because socioeconomic position, education, labour market participation, reproductive history, caregiving responsibilities, chronic stress and access to prevention may affect women differently across the life course [5-7].

Socioeconomic and environmental inequalities remain central to women’s health in Poland. Although women’s educational attainment has improved, older women, rural residents and single older households remain vulnerable to poverty, transport exclusion and unmet health needs. The 2025 Country Health Profile for Poland shows a clear income gradient in women’s self-rated health, indicating that national averages may obscure persistent inequalities [2]. Housing conditions, workplace safety, air quality, transport infrastructure, waiting times and out-of-pocket costs also influence whether formally available services are actually accessible.

Lifestyle-related risks should be interpreted in this broader social context. Diet, physical activity, body weight, tobacco smoking, alcohol use, sleep and mental well-being influence NCD risk, but they are shaped by income, education, stress, care obligations and local opportunities for prevention. The Global Burden of Disease Study identifies dietary risks, high body mass index, tobacco use, alcohol use, high blood pressure and metabolic risk factors as major contributors to disease burden [1, 8-12]. In women, obesity increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, several cancers and adverse reproductive outcomes, while socioeconomic disadvantage and stigma may delay care-seeking and reduce preventive service use.

Tobacco smoking, alcohol use and mental health require particular attention. Polish cohort data show important changes in smoking, alcohol use, and physical activity among middle-aged women between 1986 and 2021 [13], while EU-level GBD 2021 estimates indicate that alcohol-attributable morta­lity among women remains measurable in all Member States, including Poland [14]. Tobacco exposure remains an important determinant of premature mortality from cancers, chronic respiratory diseases and cardiovascular diseases [10].

Determinants of women’s health and lifestyle-related factors

The determinants of women’s health provide the conceptual framework for interpreting historical and contemporary changes in health outcomes. According to the WHO, health is shaped by the social and economic environment, the physical environment, individual characteristics and behaviours, and access to healthcare services [3]. Lalonde’s framework similarly identifies lifestyle, environment, biological factors and healthcare organisation as interacting fields influencing health outcomes [4].

Lifestyle-related factors connect individual behaviours with broader social conditions. Diet, physical activity, tobacco smoking, alcohol consumption, stress and sleep quality influence the risk of non-communicable diseases, but they are also shaped by income, education, work, care obligations and access to prevention. Suboptimal diet is one of the leading contributors to global disease burden [8], physical inactivity increases morbidity and mortality risk [9], tobacco smoking remains a major risk factor for cancers and chronic respiratory diseases [10], and alcohol consumption is associated with reduced life expectancy [11]. Therefore, these behaviours should be interpreted not only as individual choices, but also as socially patterned determinants of women’s health.

The aim of this review is to synthesize evidence on the socioeconomic situation and health of Polish women from the interwar period to the post-pandemic period. The review examines how poverty, work, housing, education, reproductive constraints, healthcare access, lifestyle risks and policy changes shaped women’s health across successive historical phases, and considers the implications for public health, clinical practice and future policy.

Material and methods

Data sources and search strategy

This article is a structured narrative review based on peer-reviewed publications, official statistical and institutional reports, policy and legal documents, and selected historical monographs or primary historical sources directly relevant to women’s health, socioeconomic determinants, healthcare access and health inequalities in Poland. Peer-reviewed literature was identified in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Polish Medical Bibliography, CEJSH and Biblioteka Nauki. Grey literature included reports and data from Statistics Poland, the National Institute of Public Health NIH – National Research Institute, the Ministry of Health, the National Health Fund, WHO, OECD, Eurostat, the European Commission and other public institutions. Journalistic or anecdotal sources were not used as the basis for epidemiological or causal inference; historical and autobiographical mate­rials were used only to contextualise living conditions when equivalent statistical data were unavailable.

The primary search was conducted in January–February 2026 and updated in May 2026. English and Polish search terms were grouped around women’s health, historical period, socioeconomic determinants, lifestyle risks, healthcare access, mortality and life expectancy. Reference lists of key papers and reports were also screened. Because the review covers several historical periods and heterogeneous evidence sources, the search strategy was intentionally broad.

Eligibility criteria and source selection

Sources were included if they addressed women’s living conditions in Poland, health outcomes or health be­haviours, healthcare access, maternal or women’s health­care, or historical context directly related to socioecono­mic determinants of health. Sources were excluded if they were purely anecdotal or journalistic, unrelated to Poland, not linked to women’s health or socioeconomic determinants, or duplicated information available in more autho­ritative scientific or institutional sources.

The revised search log contained 142 potentially relevant records and documents. After the removal of 18 duplicates, 124 sources were screened, of which 75 were excluded. The final evidence inventory comprised 49 sources, including peer-reviewed publications, official reports and statistical sources, policy documents, historical monographs, and selected primary sources. Because this is a narrative rather than systematic review, these numbers are presented as a transparent source-
selection summary, not as a PRISMA flow diagram.

Data were extracted using a structured matrix covering source type, historical period, population or setting, socioeconomic determinants, women-specific exposures, health outcomes or proxies, healthcare access issues and main implications. The synthesis was qualitative and interpretive; no pooled effect estimates were calculated due to the heterogeneity of historical, statistical, observational and policy sources. Greater interpretive weight was given to peer-reviewed studies, national statistics and institutional reports, while historical materials were used mainly to reconstruct social context.

The revised manuscript was checked against SANRA, which assesses the quality of narrative review articles, including justification, aims, literature search, referencing, scientific reasoning and presentation of data [15]. SANRA was used as an internal reporting and quality improvement tool rather than as a quantitative score for included sources.

Definition of analytical periods

The analytical periods were defined to avoid treating heterogeneous eras as uniform blocks. The synthesis distinguishes: (1) interwar Poland and the wartime rupture (1918-1945); (2) immediate post-war reconstruction and early state socialism (1945-1956); (3) later Polish People’s Republic/state-socialist period (1957-1989); (4) market transformation, EU accession and pre-pandemic Poland (1990-2019); and (5) COVID-19 and the post-pandemic period (2020-2025). The post-COVID period is interpreted as part of contemporary Poland, because its health effects overlapped with pre-existing demogra­phic, socioeconomic and healthcare system inequalities.

Discussion

The historical material shows that the relationship between socioeconomic situation and women’s health in Poland cannot be reduced to a simple narrative of conti­nuous progress. Each period was characterised by a distinct configuration of living conditions, health threats, healthcare institutions and gendered roles. Improvements in one domain often coexisted with new vulnerabilities in another. For this reason, the key findings are presented according to a consistent comparative template in each period: socioeconomic context, dominant health threats, healthcare and policy context, and women-specific mechanisms.

Interwar Poland and the wartime rupture (1918-1945)

Socioeconomic context

In interwar Poland, women’s health was strongly shaped by poverty, rural–urban inequalities, poor housing and sanitation, food insecurity, limited education and physically demanding work. Most of the population lived in rural areas: after Poland regained independence, around 75% of citizens lived in the countryside and nearly 65% depended on agriculture. Farms were usually small, with 30% below two hectares and 35% between two and five hectares, although about five hectares were considered necessary to meet basic household needs [16]. Poverty was particularly severe in central and eastern rural regions, where women’s unpaid domestic and agricultural labour was intensive and largely invisible. Urban working-class families also experienc­ed low wages and overcrowded housing, which limited access to rest, hygiene and medical care [17, 18-20].

Dominant health threats

The main health risks were undernutrition, tuberculosis and other communicable diseases, venereal diseases, maternal exhaustion, reproductive complications and premature mortality. In rural areas, food shortages were recurrent, especially during the late-winter and early-spring “hungry gap”; diets were monotonous and low in calories, while poverty also restricted children’s education and access to basic goods [16, 17]. Autobiographical peasant narratives from Pamiętniki chłopów described shortages of bread and milk, lack of clothing, overcrowded and unheated dwellings, poor hygiene, lack of access to physicians and medicines, tuberculosis and high premature mortality [21]. These conditions made infections, pregnancy and recovery after childbirth particularly dangerous for women.

Healthcare and policy context

Healthcare before World War II was geographically and financially unequal. Although the first health centres focused on disease prevention began to be established in 1925, their activity remained limited [22]. Health indicators were worse in eastern voivodeships [23], physicians were concentrated mainly in larger cities, and rural residents often could not afford treatment. Although the number of doctors almost doubled between 1923 and 1938, from 6,850 to 12,917, this still meant only 3.7 physicians per 10,000 inhabitants in 1938 [24, 18-20]. Maternal and child health services were not developed sufficiently to compensate for poverty, rural isolation and financial barriers to care.

Women-specific mechanisms

Women’s health was affected by the cumulative interaction of poverty, reproductive burden and heavy physical labour. Women were responsible for childcare, food preparation, water and fuel provision, household maintenance and agricultural work, often with little rest or nutritional compensation. Unsafe pregnancy termination and hazardous contraceptive practices further increased reproductive mortality; poor women frequently risked their health because additional children could deepen extreme poverty, while repeated pregnancies increased exhaustion and disease risk [18]. Alcohol abuse within households also worsened women’s living conditions by intensifying poverty, violence and the caregiving burden [18, 19]. During World War II, these pre-existing vulnerabilities were amplified by displacement, destruction of housing and infrastructure, food scarcity, trauma and disrupted healthcare.

Immediate post-war reconstruction and early state socialism (1945-1956)

Socioeconomic context

The immediate post-war decade was marked by devastation, housing shortages, population movements, food scarcity and the rebuilding of state institutions. The health situation in the late 1940s and early 1950s was therefore not comparable with later decades of the People’s Republic of Poland (PRL). War losses and social disruption coincided with rapid industrialisation and urban migration.

Dominant health threats

Infectious diseases, tuberculosis, infant mortality, maternal risk, poor nutrition and occupational hazards remained central. In industrial centres such as Łódź, dense housing, migration from rural areas and poor working conditions contributed to respiratory diseases and other health problems. The early post-war period was also characterised by efforts to reduce infant mortality and infectious diseases through expanded public-health measures.

Healthcare and policy context

The socialist state progressively expanded healthcare infrastructure and preventive services. Vaccination, tuberculosis control, maternal and child care and hygiene campaigns were among the priorities. These reforms were important for population health, but shortages of medical personnel, medicines and infrastructure limited the quality and reach of services. The system also tended to define women’s health primarily through reproduction and labour-force participation.

Women-specific mechanisms

Women were expected to contribute to reconstruction through paid work while continuing unpaid domestic labour. In practice, formal employment did not remove household responsibilities. The double burden of work and care became a persistent determinant of women’s health across the state-socialist period.

After World War II, the material situation of Polish society was extremely poor. Peasants – who had partici­pated on a large scale in underground resistance and partisan activity – paid a high price for their stance, as wartime devastation and extermination policies further deepened the already difficult economic situation of rural communities; industrial workers also faced harsh working conditions and low wages. Living conditions were additionally worsened by political decisions, including the “battle for trade” (1945-1948), during which the state took over domestic commodity circulation, liquidating many private outlets and creating shortages of basic goods; the 1950 currency exchange further impoverished the population, while information about the social costs of government actions was censored [17, 25].

Housing conditions were very poor. In the early 1950s, authorities intensified “densification” of living space by assigning additional working-class families to flats deemed underoccupied. Propaganda normalized overcrowding – for example, a 1948 exhibition at the National Museum in Warsaw presented a “universal interior” arranged within five square metres – and advice columns suggested that careful scheduling and organisation, rather than systemic change, could resolve problems such as shared bathrooms [26].

At the same time, the authorities expanded healthcare services, officially prioritising control of infectious diseases and maternal and child care in response to high incidence and infant mortality. Given the massive population loss resulting from the war, the state focused primarily on women’s reproductive health. In the years 1945-1952, prenatal care (pregnancy clinics) and maternal and child care facilities (delivery centres and maternity wards) were developed, and preventive and hygiene measures were expanded [27]. However, shortages of medical personnel limited effectiveness. Data from Łódź illustrate the situation: research by the National Institute of Hygiene in 1950 showed that tuberculosis and pneumoconiosis caused particularly severe harm, and tuberculosis affected about 80% of children under 15 years of age. Rapid urbanisation and industrialisation, combined with mass migration from rural areas and poor housing, produced a similar epidemiological picture nationwide [17].

Later PRL/state-socialist period (1957-1989)

Socioeconomic context

The later PRL period brought broader access to education, employment and public services, but also chronic shortages, housing problems, regional inequalities and limited autonomy in healthcare. Women’s employment increased substantially, yet state-socialist emancipation remained structurally limited: women were expected to contribute to household income while continuing to perform most domestic and caregiving work. In 1972, about 68% of married women were employed, and by 1980 women constituted nearly half of the workforce, although men’s paid work retained higher social status and women’s employment was often treated as secondary [28-30].

Dominant health threats

Infectious diseases gradually declined, while cardiovascular diseases, cancers, chronic respiratory diseases, injuries and other “man-made diseases” associated with industrialisation, tobacco use, alcohol consumption, diet, stress and environmental exposures became increasingly important. For women, these risks were modified by occupational exposures, reproductive history, unpaid household labour and uneven access to prevention. Rural women were particularly vulnerable because farm work, domestic duties, pregnancy, limited recovery after childbirth and weaker access to medical and dental care cumulatively contributed to long-term health disadvantage [28, 31].

Healthcare and policy context

The PRL healthcare system expanded basic services, vaccinations, screening and selected preventive measures,
helping to control many infectious and deficiency-related diseases. However, service quality, regional availability and patient-centred care remained limited. The rural population was incorporated into universal healthcare only in 1972; earlier, farm owners were entitled mainly to paediatric care for children and pregnancy-related care for women [20, 32]. Free treatment for tuberculosis was introduced in 1959 and for venereal diseases in 1962, while antibiotics, compulsory vaccinations and screening programmes improved disease control. Nevertheless, shortages of medicines and blood, regional disparities, poor infrastructure, haste, impersonal treatment and corruption persisted [20, 33].

Women-specific mechanisms

Women’s health was still viewed mainly through reproduction and labour-force participation rather than as an independent policy priority. Health protection for employed women was largely linked to maternity, while family planning and fertility control were primarily treated as women’s responsibility [34]. Rural women’s health was especially compromised: the 1974 study on women farmers showed daily energy deficits of about 800 kcal among women during harvest, widespread child undernutrition, limited dental care and high morbidity from respiratory, nervous system, infectious, digestive, genitourinary and cardiovascular diseases [31]. Women worked 4,400-5,840 hours annually, compared with 3,876 hours for men and 2,200-2,400 hours for industrial workers, which contributed to exhaustion, circulatory disorders, insufficient recovery after illness and childbirth, and accelerated ageing [28, 31]. Although healthcare access expanded, material barriers and social norms led many rural women to neglect symptoms and prioritise family needs over their own health [29, 35]. Perinatal care also often remained paternalistic and dehumanising, with many women recalling childbirth during the communist period as humiliating [36].

Market transformation, EU accession and pre-pandemic Poland (1990-2019)

Socioeconomic context

After 1989, Poland underwent rapid political and economic transformation. Market reforms, industrial restructuring, unemployment and regional decline affected women unevenly, depending on age, education, occupation and place of residence. Studies from the transition period showed that multiple social roles, labour market instability and socioeconomic position influenced women’s self-rated health and morbidity [37]. Although transformation and EU accession brought institutional modernisation, new healthcare standards and broader prevention, they also produced social costs, including unemployment, poverty, inflation, regional inequalities, emigration, transport exclusion and the feminisation of poverty. Recent data indicate that 2.5 million people live in extreme poverty and around 17 million below the social minimum, while the number living below the subsistence minimum increased by 47% within one year [38].

Dominant health threats

During this period, women’s health profile was dominated by non-communicable diseases, especially cardiovascular diseases and cancers, together with metabolic risk factors, tobacco- and alcohol-related harms and mental health disorders. At the same time, women’s education, preventive programmes and health awareness improved. Trends from 1986–2021 show changes in smoking, alcohol use, coffee consumption and physical activity among Polish women, reflecting the influence of socioeconomic and occupational transformation on lifestyle [13].

Healthcare and policy context

Poland’s accession to the European Union in 2004 supported public health reporting, infrastructure investment and alignment with EU standards. However, real access to care remained limited by long waiting times, workforce shortages, out-of-pocket payments, unequal dental care access and rural transport barriers. In 2021, Poland had 3.4 physicians per 1,000 inhabitants, below both the OECD average of 3.7 and the average of 4.04 for 25 EU countries included in the OECD report [39]. Limited reimbursement of modern therapies, the de facto privatisation of dentistry and organisational pressure also continued to burden patients and the healthcare system [2, 39, 40].

Women-specific mechanisms

Contemporary women’s health reflects the coexistence of higher education and labour-market participation with persistent caregiving responsibilities, wage inequality, pension gaps, multimorbidity and longer survival with chronic disease. Older women are especially vulnerable to poverty, social isolation and disability, including the emergence of economically disadvantaged “new poor pensioners”, among whom women predominate [38]. Although Poland’s demographic and social indicators remain partly favourable, ageing is accelerating, housing overcrowding remains problematic, and improvements in poverty or social exclusion have not been observed among the oldest adults [41]. Therefore, gains in life expectancy should be interpreted together with healthy life years, quality of life, disability and unequal access to care.

COVID-19 and the post-pandemic period (2020–2025)

Socioeconomic context

COVID-19 affected Poland after several decades of demographic ageing, healthcare workforce shortages and uneven access to specialist care. The pandemic did not create these problems, but intensified them, particularly among older women, rural residents and women with low income, who were more exposed to multimorbidity, transport barriers, financial constraints and delayed care. In 2024, waiting times for medical services used by women were still increasing in most areas [42]. Transport exclusion also remained important, as the Polish transport system is insufficiently adapted to women’s mobility needs and may affect more than 10 million people in Poland, or 27% of the population [43, 44].

Dominant health threats

The pandemic caused excess mortality, a temporary decline in life expectancy and major disruption of diagnostics, cancer screening, cardiovascular care, rehabilitation, mental healthcare and perinatal services. Between 2020 and 2022, COVID-19 was associated in Poland with approximately 200,000 excess deaths, mainly among people aged over 60 years [45]. Compared with 2019, life expectancy in 2021 was 2.3 years shorter for men and 2.1 years shorter for women, with the greatest pandemic-related decline among women observed in counties with the highest deprivation [41]. Cardiovascular diseases remained the leading causes of death in 2020-2021, followed by cancers [46].

Healthcare and policy context

Women’s healthcare was directly affected by the suspension or delay of gynaecological, obstetric, laboratory and prophylactic services [47]. Telemedicine maintained partial contact with the healthcare system, but could not replace physical examination, imaging, laboratory diagnostics or specialist procedures. In 2020, the number of patients receiving diagnostic and treatment services for cardiovascular diseases decreased by 276,000, while the total number of services fell by 0.63 million compared with 2019 [48]. Cancer detection indicators also declined, generating a “health debt” that may result in later diagnosis of advanced malignancies [41].

Women-specific mechanisms

Women are frequent users of primary, reproductive, preventive and mental-health services; therefore, disruptions affected pregnancy care, cervical and breast cancer prevention, cardiovascular diagnostics and psychosocial support. At the same time, many women carried increased household and caregiving burdens during lockdowns. Women constituted 51.8% of Poland’s population at the end of 2021, with a strong numerical predominance in older age groups: 154 women per 100 men among people aged 65 years and older and 260 women per 100 men among those aged 85 years and older [41]. This demographic structure makes delayed care, multimorbidity, disability and social isolation particularly relevant for women’s health.

Contemporary data indicate that post-pandemic recovery should address not only mortality and delayed diagnostics, but also lifestyle, mental health and access barriers. In 2024, women more often than men achieved a high Health Index score, used primary care and reported daily supplement use, but rural residence, lower education and financial constraints were associated with worse health prospects [49]. Nearly half of adult Poles did not engage in any sport, 51% had excess body weight, and 59% reported chronic health problems [49]. Mental health also remains a major concern: 17% of women and 13% of men rated their mental health as poor or very poor, while women used outpatient mental healthcare about 50% more often than men, with lower access among rural residents [41, 49]. Financial and transport barriers persisted: in 2024, 25% of Poles had forgone a physician visit due to cost, 31% had forgone dental care, and these difficulties were reported more often by women [49]. Income differences between urban and rural households further indicate that place of residence remains an important determinant of access to care and health inequalities among women [38].

Interpretive limitations

This review is limited by the fragmented and heterogeneous nature of historical evidence, particularly for the interwar period, wartime years and early PRL. Some sources are qualitative, autobiographical or institutional rather than epidemiological, which limits direct comparison with contemporary statistical data. In addition, each analysed period includes regional, class and generational differences that cannot be fully examined in a single article. The unequal density of evidence across periods may also affect the apparent depth of interpretation: earlier sections rely more on historical descriptions, whereas contemporary sections use epidemiological datasets, official reports and health service statistics.

Because this is a narrative review, it does not provide pooled effect estimates or a systematic risk-of-bias assessment for all included sources. Its strength lies in integrating historical, epidemiological and social policy evidence into a long-term interpretation of women’s health in Poland. To reduce subjectivity, the revised manuscript specifies the search strategy, eligibility criteria, source selection process, common interpretive template and SANRA-based quality check.

Implications for public health, clinical practice and research

The findings support a dual public-health strategy: continued prevention of NCDs and behavioural risk
factors, and reduction of structural barriers limiting women’s access to preventive and specialist care. Particular attention should be given to older women, rural residents, women with low income or education, single older households and women with multimorbidity. Transport barriers, dental care affordability, mental health access and continuity of cancer and cardiovascular screening should be treated as health equity issues.

In clinical practice, socioeconomic and gender-sensitive assessment should be incorporated into routine prevention and care. Women with chronic disease, obesity, tobacco or alcohol exposure, sleep disturbance, depression, anxiety or repeated missed appointments may require support not only medically, but also in overcoming financial, transport, caregiving or work-related barriers. Perinatal and gynaecological care should maintain high standards of dignity, communication and continuity, especially during crises.

Future research should include longitudinal and intersectional analyses combining administrative health data, mortality data, socioeconomic indicators, healthcare access measures and qualitative evidence. Key gaps concern rural women, older women living alone, women affected by transport exclusion, women from regions undergoing labour market decline and the long-term consequences of pandemic-related diagnostic delays.

Conclusions

The socioeconomic situation and health of Polish women have changed profoundly over the last century. The most visible improvements include longer life expectancy, broader education, better access to medical services, infectious disease control and stronger institutional capacity. However, these improvements were uneven and did not remove the importance of gendered social determinants of health.

In the interwar and immediate post-war periods, poverty, undernutrition, infectious diseases, reproductive risk and poor access to care dominated women’s health. During the PRL, public health expansion reduced some traditional threats, but women’s double burden, rural disadvantages and a narrow reproductive framing of women’s health remained substantial. After 1989, transformation and EU accession created both opportunities and new inequalities. In the post-pandemic period, health debt, ageing, NCDs, mental health and healthcare access barriers define the central challenges.

Future policy should move beyond general population averages and systematically monitor women’s health by age, education, income, place of residence and healthcare access. Clinically, women’s health requires integrated prevention addressing cardiovascular risk, cancer screening, obesity, tobacco and alcohol use, mental health, sleep and social constraints. Research should focus on long-term trajectories and the combined effects of socioeconomic position, gender roles and healthcare system barriers. Such an approach is necessary to transform historical health gains into equitable healthy longevity for Polish women.

Disclosures

1. Institutional review board statement: Not appicable.

2. Assistance with the article: None.

3. Financial support and sponsorship: No external funding.

4. Conflicts of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References