Department of Gynaecological Endocrinology and Fertility Disorders, University of Heidelberg, Vossstrasse 9, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany. petra.frank-herrmann@med.uni-heidelberg.deROR
Sir,Currently, a variety of start-up companies are developing mobile phone apps to track the menstrual cycle and the fertile window, for the use of women who are trying to conceive or trying to avo...
fertility awareness mobile app menstrual cycle tracking, Frank-Herrmann Freundl fertility app evaluation, mobile phone application fertile window prediction, natural family planning digital technology, Stanford JB fertility awareness method app, cycle tracking app accuracy avoiding pregnancy, smartphone app ovulation detection fertile window, fertility awareness based methods digital tools, menstrual cycle app trying to conceive, start-up companies fertility tracking apps regulation
PMID 28849952 28849952 DOI 10.1080/13625187.2017.1362691 10.1080/13625187.2017.1362691
Cite this article
Frank-Herrmann, P., Stanford, J. B., & Freundl, G. (2017). Fertility awareness-based mobile application. The European journal of contraception & reproductive health care : the official journal of the European Society of Contraception, 22(5), 396-397. https://doi.org/10.1080/13625187.2017.1362691
Frank-Herrmann P, Stanford JB, Freundl G. Fertility awareness-based mobile application. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2017;22(5):396-397. doi:10.1080/13625187.2017.1362691
Frank-Herrmann, P., et al. "Fertility awareness-based mobile application." The European journal of contraception & reproductive health care : the official journal of the European Society of Contraception, vol. 22, no. 5, 2017, pp. 396-397.
Keywords
Algorithms, Female, Fertility, Humans, Mobile Applications
Related articles
Fertility AwarenessApp ComparisonFertile Window IdentificationBBT and Cervical Mucus
The Natural Cycles app employs daily basal body temperature to define the fertile window via a proprietary algorithm and is clinically established effective in preventing pregnancy. We sought to (1) compare the app-defined fertile window of Natural Cycles to that of CycleProGo, an app that uses BBT and cervical mucus to define the fertile window and (2) compare the app-defined fertile windows to the estimated physiologic fertile window. Daily BBT were entered into Natural Cycles from 20 randomly selected regularly cycling women with at least 12 complete cycles from the CycleProGo database. The proportion of cycles with equivalent (±1 cycle day) fertile-window starts and fertile-window ends was determined. The app-defined fertile windows were then compared to the estimated physiologic fertile window using Peak mucus to estimate ovulation. Fifty seven percent of cycles (136/238) had equivalent fertile-window starts and 36% (72/181) had equivalent fertile-window end days. The mean overall fertile-window length from Natural Cycles was 12.8 days compared to 15.1 days for CycleProGo (p < 0.001). The Natural Cycles algorithm declared 12% to 30% of cycles with a fertile-window start and 13% to 38% of cycles with a fertile-window end within the estimated physiologic fertile window. The CycleProGo algorithm declared 4% to 14% of cycles with a fertile-window start and no cycles with a fertile-window end within the estimated physiologic fertile window. Natural Cycles designated a higher proportion of cycles days as infertile within the estimated physiologic fertile window than CycleProGo.
Use of cervical mucus in addition to BBT may improve the accuracy of identifying the fertile window. Additional studies with other markers of ovulation and the fertile window would give additional insight into the clinical implications of app-defined fertile window differences.
Fertility AwarenessMobile ApplicationsFertile Window IdentificationDigital Tools
Open Access
To characterize mobile fertility tracking applications (apps) to determine the use of such apps for women trying to conceive by identifying the fertile window.
An exploratory cross-sectional audit study was conducted of fertility tracking applications. Ninety out of a possible total 200 apps were included for full review. The main outcome measures were the underlying app method for predicting ovulation, the fertile window, or both, price to download and use the app, disclaimers and cautions, information and features provided and tracked, and app marketing strategies.
All the apps except one monitored the women's menstrual cycle dates. Most apps only tracked menstrual cycle dates (n = 49 [54.4%]). The remainder tracked at least one fertility-based awareness method (basal body temperature, cervical mucus, LH) (n = 41 [45.6%]). Twenty-five apps measured dates, basal body temperature, LH and cervical mucus (27.8%). Seventy-six per cent of apps were free to download with free apps having more desirable features, tracking more measures and having more and better quality educational insights than paid apps. Seventy per cent of apps were classified as feminine apps, 41% of which were pink in colour. Mobile fertility tracking apps are heterogenous in their underlying methods of predicting fertile days, the price to obtain full app functionality, and in content and design. Unreliable calendar apps remain the most commonly available fertility apps on the market. The unregulated nature of fertility apps is a concern that could be addressed by app regulating bodies. The possible benefit of using fertility apps to reduce time to pregnancy needs to be evaluated.
Physicians who counsel women for preconception concerns are in an excellent position to give advice to couples regarding the optimal timing of intercourse to achieve pregnancy. The currently available evidence suggests that methods that prospectively identify the window of fertility are likely to be more effective for optimally timing intercourse than calendar calculations or basal body temperature. There are several promising methods with good scientific bases to identify the fertile window prospectively. These include fertility charting of vaginal discharge and a commercially available fertility monitor. These methods identify the occurrence of ovulation clinically and also identify a longer window of fertility than urinary luteinizing hormone kits. Prospectively identifying the full window of fertility may lead to higher rates of conception. Proper information given early in the course of trying to achieve pregnancy is likely to reduce time to conception for many couples, and also to reduce unnecessary intervention and cost.
Pearson JT et al., 2021·Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care
Digital fertility awareness-based contraception offers an alternative choice for women who do not wish to use hormonal or invasive methods. The aim of this study was to investigate the key demographics of current users of the Natural Cycles app and assess the contraceptive outcomes of women preventing pregnancy in a UK cohort of women. This was a real world observational prospective observational study. The typical-use effectiveness of the method was calculated using both 13-cycle cumulative probability of pregnancy (life table analysis) and Pearl Index for the entire study cohort. Perfect-use PI was calculated using data from cycles where sexual intercourse during the fertile window was marked as protected and no unprotected sex was recorded on fertile days. 12,247 women were included in the study and contributed an average of 9.9 months of data for a total of 10,066 woman years of exposure. The mean age of the cohort was 30, mean BMI 23.4, the majority were in a stable relationship (83.2%) and had a university degree or higher (83%). The one year typical use, PI was 6.1 (95% CI: 5.6, 6.6) and with perfect-use was 2.0 (95% CI: 1.3, 2.8). 13 cycle pregnancy probability was 7.1%. This is the first study which describes the use of a digital contraceptive by women in the UK. It describes the demographics of users and how they correlate with the apps effectiveness at preventing pregnancy.