To assess the effect of randomization to FertilityFriend.com, a mobile computing fertility-tracking app, on fecundability.
Design
Parallel non-blinded randomized controlled trial nested within the Pregnancy Study Online (PRESTO), a North American preconception cohort. PATIENT(S): Female participants aged 21 to 45 years attempting conception for ≤6 menstrual cycles at enrolment (2013-2019).
Intervention
Randomization (1:1) of 5532 participants to receive a premium Fertility Friend (FF) subscription. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Fecundability (per-cycle probability of conception). Participants completed bimonthly follow-up questionnaires until pregnancy or a censoring event, whichever came first. We first performed an intent-to-treat analysis of the effect of FF randomization on fecundability. In secondary analyses, we used a per-protocol approach that accounted for adherence in each trial arm. In both analyses, we used proportional probabilities regression models to estimate fecundability ratios (FR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) comparing those randomized vs. not randomized and applied inverse probability weights to account for loss-to-follow-up (intent-to-treat and per-protocol analyses) and adherence (per-protocol analyses only).
Results
Using life-table methods, 64% of the 2775 participants randomized to FF and 63% of the 2767 participants not randomized to FF conceived during 12 cycles; these respective percentages were each 70% among those with 0-1 cycles of attempt time at enrolment. Of those randomized to FF, 72% were defined as adherent (68% of observed menstrual cycles). In intent-to-treat analyses, there was no appreciable association overall (FR = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.90-1.04) or within strata of pregnancy attempt time at enrolment, age, education, or other characteristics. In per-protocol analyses, we observed little association overall (FR = 1.06; 95% CI, 0.99-1.14), but weak-to-moderate positive associations among participants who had longer attempt times at enrolment (FR = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.98-1.35 for 3-4 cycles; FR = 1.14; 95% CI, 0.87-1.48 for 5-6 cycles), were aged <25 years (FR = 1.29; 95% CI, 1.01-1.66), had ≤12 years of education (FR = 1.32; 95% CI, 0.92-1.89), or were non-users of hormonal contraception within 3 months before enrolment (FR = 1.10; 95% CI, 1.02-1.19).
Conclusion
No appreciable associations were observed in intent-to-treat analyses. In secondary per-protocol analyses that accounted for adherence, randomization to FF was associated with slightly greater fecundability among selected subgroups of participants; however, these results are susceptible to unmeasured confounding.
fertility tracking app effectiveness, fertilityfriend randomized controlled trial, fertility awareness software pregnancy rates, charting app conception success, cycle tracking for trying to conceive, fertility monitoring mobile app, fecundability tracking software, digital fertility awareness methods, online cycle charting outcomes, adherence to fertility tracking, time to pregnancy with charting, conception probability cycle monitoring
Cite this article
Wise, L. A., Wang, T. R., Stanford, J. B., Wesselink, A. K., Ncube, C. N., Rothman, K. J., & Murray, E. J. (n.d.). A randomized trial of web-based fertility-tracking software and fecundability. *Fertility and sterility*.
Wise LA, Wang TR, Stanford JB, Wesselink AK, Ncube CN, Rothman KJ, et al. A randomized trial of web-based fertility-tracking software and fecundability. Fertil Steril..
Wise, Lauren A., et al. "A randomized trial of web-based fertility-tracking software and fecundability." *Fertility and sterility*.
Ali R et al., 2020
Open Access
Reproductive Biomedicine Online
RESEARCH Question: To characterize mobile fertility tracking applications (apps) to determine the use of such apps for women trying to conceive by identifying the fertile window.
Design: An explorator...
This issue of Current Medical Research (CMR) includes studies that provide evidence that use of natural family planning (NFP) can be helpful for subfertile couples wishing to achieve a pregnancy, the ...
RRM Methods > General FABM > Clinical OutcomesInfertility > Couple-Based > Combined TreatmentBody Literacy > Charting Instruction > Digital Tools
Duane M et al., 2016Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM
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 menstru...
RRM Methods > General FABM > EffectivenessContraception/Comparison > FABM vs Hormonal > EffectivenessBody Literacy > Charting Instruction > Digital Tools