Cited by 110Reproductive Health and ContraceptionMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsReproductive Health and Technologies

The Performance of Fertility Awareness-based Method Apps Marketed to Avoid Pregnancy

Open access
Duane, M., Contreras, A., Jensen, E. T., White, A.·2016·The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: In recent years there has been an explosion in the development of medical apps, with more than 40,000 apps now available. Nearly 100 apps allow women to track their fertility and menstrual cycles and can be used to avoid or achieve pregnancy. Apps offer a convenient way to track fertility biomarkers. However, only some use evidence-based fertility awareness-based methods (FABMs), which with ideal use have rates of effectiveness similar to those of commonly used forms of hormonal birth control. Since having a baby or preventing a pregnancy are important responsibilities, it is critical that women and couples have access to reliable, evidence-based apps that allow them to accurately track their fertility. METHODS: We developed a tool to evaluate and rate fertility apps. This tool is specifically designed to help couples avoid pregnancy. RESULTS: Results showed that the majority of fertility apps are not based on evidence-based FABMs or include a disclaimer discouraging use for avoiding pregnancy. However, at least 1 app in each FABM category (except symptohormonal methods) had a perfect score on accuracy. CONCLUSION: Relying solely on an app to use an FABM, without appropriate training in the method, may not be sufficient to prevent pregnancy.

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 · 10.3122/jabfm.2016.04.160022

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 8 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Duane, M., Contreras, A., Jensen, E. T., & White, A.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Venue
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Published
2016-07-01
Volume
29
Issue
4
Pages
508-511
ISSN
  • 1557-2625 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-7118
OpenAlex
W2473946841
Cited by
110
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1
FWCI
10.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • UNC Libraries
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
Keywords
fertility awareness-based methods, fertility tracking apps, menstrual cycle tracking, contraception, fertility indicators, contraceptive effectiveness
MeSH terms
Contraception, Family Planning Services, Female, Humans, Medical Informatics Applications, Pregnancy, Natural Family Planning Methods, Biomarkers, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Evidence-Based Medicine, Fertile Period

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