Cited by 60Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsReproductive Health and ContraceptionReproductive Health and Technologies

User profile and preferences in fertility apps for preventing pregnancy: an exploratory pilot study

Open access
Starling, Mary Summer, Kandel, Zosha, Haile, Liya, Simmons, Rebecca G.·2018·mHealth

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The rapid proliferation of fertility apps has created a market that has the potential to address the needs of women and couples worldwide. Some women who seek to prevent pregnancy are making behavioral decisions based on information they receive from fertility apps, yet fertility apps may not always be accurate and reliance on them could lead to unintended pregnancies. Little research has been done to understand who uses fertility apps for pregnancy prevention, how those who use them perceive their efficacy, and their preferences for how apps should be designed and presented to accurately assist them in preventing pregnancy. METHODS: A web-based pilot survey was launched through Facebook recruiting women who either currently use a fertility app for pregnancy prevention or intend to use one in the future. Data collected from 1,000 women surveyed user preferences around fertility app characteristics, including aesthetics, features, functionality, and reputation. User knowledge about fertility and reproduction was assessed, and knowledge categories were created. Chi-square tests assessed differences in app characteristic preferences according to knowledge category. Additional qualitative analyses on free-text answers explored which features of apps are important to users when they search for one to use. RESULTS: Approximately one quarter (23.1%) of survey respondents reported currently using a fertility app or had used one in the recent past, and 76.9% reported intention to use one in the future. A majority of both current and intended users (65.4%) had some knowledge of fertility and reproduction, while 16.5% had very little knowledge. 18.1% reported receiving prior provider counseling on using a fertility-awareness based method. Users across all knowledge groups said it was very important for apps to be science-based and that they identify fertile days during the menstrual cycle. CONCLUSIONS: Women who use or wish to use apps to prevent pregnancy are seeking apps that are scientifically sound and provide them personalized information around their potential fertility. However, most fertility apps women reported using lack the capability for true fertility-awareness based method application for accurate, reliable pregnancy prevention. More research is needed to evaluate apps for efficacy and accuracy preventing pregnancy. Collaborations between app developers and women's health experts are encouraged, as well as informed consumerism campaigns.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.21037/mhealth.2018.06.02

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Symptothermal apps also measure other parameters such as cervical mucus changes.

    “and symptothermal apps that also measure other parameters such as cervical mucus changes.23”

    From Real-world menstrual cycle characteristics of more than 600,000 menstrual cycles (2019) · cites this paper as [23]

    The Functionality section discusses an app feature that lets users input temperature or cervical secretions, which supports the cervical-mucus part of the claim. It reports users’ preferences for that feature, however; it does not identify the apps as symptothermal or establish that they measure those changes. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.80)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 21 · Cited by 60

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Mobile devices driving unprecedented growth in self- monitoring technologies markets, according to bcc research [press release]. BCC Research LLC, June 29 2015. Available online: https://www.bccresearch.com/ pressroom/hlc/mobile-devices-driving-unprecedented- growth-in-self-monitoring-technologies-markets
  2. Fogg BJ, Marshall J, Laraki O, et al. What makes web sites credible? A report on a large quantitative study. In: Beaudouin-Lafon M, Jacob RJK. editors. ACM CHI 2001 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference; March 31-April 5, 2001; Seattle, Washington, USA, 2001:61-8.
  3. Friedman B, Kahn PH, Howe DC. Trust online. Commun Acm 2000;43:34-40.
  4. Briggs P, Burford B, De Angeli A, et al. Trust in online advice. Social Science Computer Review 2002;20:321-32.
  5. Arroyo MD. Scientific Language in Skin-Care Advertising: Persuading through Opacity. Revista Espanola De Linguistica Aplicada 2013;26:197-213.

Authors
Starling, M. S., Kandel, Z., Haile, L., & Simmons, R. G.
Affiliations
  • Georgetown University (US)
  • University of Utah (US)
Venue
mHealth
Published
2018-06
Volume
4
Pages
21-21
ISSN
2306-9740 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2810103848
Cited by
60
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 2
FWCI
9.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • mHealth (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • United States Agency for International Development (AID-OAAOAO13O00083, OAAOAO13O00083)
  • Georgetown University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
Keywords
contraception, fertility awareness, fertility awareness-based methods, user preferences, fertility knowledge, menstrual cycle tracking, unintended pregnancy, mobile application design, women's health, consumer health technology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review