Improving usability and pregnancy rates of a fertility monitor by an additional mobile application: results of a retrospective efficacy study of Daysy and DaysyView app

Use of menstruation and fertility app trackers: a scoping review of the evidence

INTRODUCTION

There has been a phenomenal worldwide increase in the development and use of mobile health applications (mHealth apps) that monitor menstruation and fertility. Critics argue that many of the apps are inaccurate and lack evidence from either clinical trials or user experience. The aim of this scoping review is to provide an overview of the research literature on mHealth apps that track menstruation and fertility.

METHODS

This project followed the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. The ACM, CINAHL, Google Scholar, PubMed and Scopus databases were searched for material published between 1 January 2010 and 30 April 2019. Data summary and synthesis were used to chart and analyse the data.

RESULTS

In total 654 records were reviewed. Subsequently, 135 duplicate records and 501 records that did not meet the inclusion criteria were removed. Eighteen records from 13 countries form the basis of this review. The papers reviewed cover a variety of disciplinary and methodological frameworks. Three main themes were identified: fertility and reproductive health tracking, pregnancy planning, and pregnancy prevention.

CONCLUSIONS

Motivations for fertility app use are varied, overlap and change over time, although women want apps that are accurate and evidence-based regardless of whether they are tracking their fertility, planning a pregnancy or using the app as a form of contraception. There is a lack of critical debate and engagement in the development, evaluation, usage and regulation of fertility and menstruation apps. The paucity of evidence-based research and absence of fertility, health professionals and users in studies is raised.

Advances in Precision Health and Emerging Diagnostics for Women

During the Dutch winter famine of 1944–1945, an interesting observation was made about the offspring born during this time—They had an increased risk of developing metabolic syndrome and other chronic diseases. Subsequent research has confirmed this finding as well as noting that health outcomes for many diseases are different, and often worse, for women. These findings, combined with the lack of enrollment of women in clinical trials and/or analysis of sex-specific differences are important factors which need to be addressed. In fact, Women’s health research and sex differences have historically been overlooked or lumped together and assumed equivalent to those of men. Hence, a focus on women’s health and disease prevention is critical to improve the lives of women in the 21st Century. In this review, we point out the critical differences biologically and socially that present both challenges and opportunities for development of novel platforms for precision health. The technologic and scientific advances specific to women’s precision health have the potential to improve the health and wellbeing for all females across the world.

Typical use effectiveness of Natural Cycles: postmarket surveillance study investigating the impact of previous contraceptive choice on the risk of unintended pregnancy

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association between contraceptive effectiveness of Natural Cycles and users' previous choice of contraceptive, and to evaluate the impact of shifting from other methods to Natural Cycles on the risk of unintended pregnancy.

SETTING

Natural Cycles mobile application.

PARTICIPANTS

16 331 Natural Cycles users in Sweden for the prevention of pregnancy.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Risk of unintended pregnancy.

STUDY DESIGN

Real world evidence was collected from Natural Cycles users regarding contraceptive use prior to using Natural Cycles and sexual activity while using Natural Cycles. We calculated the typical use 1-year Pearl Index (PI) and 13-cycle failure rate of Natural Cycles for each cohort. The PI was compared with the population PI of their stated previous methods.

RESULTS

For women who had used condoms before, the PI of Natural Cycles was the lowest at 3.5±0.5. For women who had used the pill before, the PI of Natural Cycles was the highest at 8.1±0.6. The frequency of unprotected sex on fertile days partially explained some of the observed variation in PI between cohorts. 89% of users switched to Natural Cycles from methods with higher or similar reported PIs.

CONCLUSION

The effectiveness of Natural Cycles is influenced by previous contraceptive choice and this should be considered when evaluating the suitability of the method for the individual. We estimate that Natural Cycles usage can reduce the overall likelihood of having an unintended pregnancy by shifting usage from less effective methods.

Published analysis of contraceptive effectiveness of Daysy and DaysyView app is fatally flawed

BACKGROUND

In March 2018, Dr. Martin C. Koch and colleagues published an analysis purporting to measure the effectiveness of the Daysy device and DaysyView app for the prevention of unintended pregnancy. Unfortunately, the analysis was flawed in multiple ways which render the estimates unreliable. Unreliable estimates of contraceptive effectiveness can endanger public health.

MAIN BODY

This commentary details multiple concerns pertaining to the collection and analysis of data in Koch et al. 2018. A key concern pertains to the inappropriate exclusion of all women with fewer than 13 cycles of use from the Pearl Index calculations, which has no basis in standard effectiveness calculations. Multiple additional methodological concerns, as well as prior attempts to directly convey concerns to the manufacturer regarding marketing materials based on prior inaccurate analyses, are also discussed.

CONCLUSION

The Koch et al. 2018 publication produced unreliable estimates of contraceptive effectiveness for the Daysy device and DaysyView app, which are likely substantially higher than the actual contraceptive effectiveness of the device and app. Those estimates are being used in marketing materials which may inappropriately inflate consumer confidence and leave consumers more vulnerable than expected to the risk of unintended pregnancy. Prior attempts to directly convey concerns to the manufacturer of this device were unsuccessful in preventing publication of subsequent inaccurate analyses. To protect public health, concerns with this analysis should be documented in the published literature, the Koch et al. 2018 analysis should be retracted, and marketing materials on contraceptive effectiveness should be subjected to appropriate oversight.