Stujenske, T. M., Mu, Q., Pérez Capotosto, M., & Bouchard, T. P. (2023). Survey Analysis of Quantitative and Qualitative Menstrual Cycle Tracking Technologies. Medicina (Kaunas). https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59091509
Stujenske TM, Mu Q, Pérez Capotosto M, Bouchard TP. Survey Analysis of Quantitative and Qualitative Menstrual Cycle Tracking Technologies. Medicina (Kaunas). 2023. doi:10.3390/medicina59091509
Stujenske, Theresa M., et al. "Survey Analysis of Quantitative and Qualitative Menstrual Cycle Tracking Technologies." Medicina (Kaunas), 2023.
For EndNote, Zotero or Mendeley:
Open access
No open license is recorded for this paper. Reuse terms are set by the publisher.
In a survey of 368 women, most tracked cycles to avoid pregnancy
A 2023 online survey of 368 women, mostly users of fertility awareness-based methods, found that about 7 out of 10 tracked their cycles mainly to avoid pregnancy. About 8 out of 10 used urine hormone tests or monitors, the most common tool.
Key Findings
Of 368 women analyzed, 268 (72.8%) named avoiding pregnancy as the primary reason for tracking. Another 43 (11.7%) wanted to learn about reproductive health, and 21 wanted to get pregnant.
Most-used tools were urine hormone tests or monitors (299 women, 81.3%), smartphone apps (253, 68.8%) and temperature devices (116, 31.5%). Women could report more than one.
Fertility awareness-based method (FABM) users numbered 356 (96.7%). The Marquette Method was named most often, by 274 women.
Tracking helped lead to diagnosis, by self-report, for 63.6% of women with PCOS, 61.8% with endometriosis and 75% with infertility.
Satisfaction was high: 53.5% were extremely satisfied and 33.7% somewhat satisfied. A great deal of added reproductive health knowledge was reported by 38.6%.
Interpretation
The authors recruited women online, through social media groups and a Marquette Method instructor email listserv. Most were white (92.9%) and married. The authors state that results cannot be generalized to all users of cycle tracking technologies. The survey describes use and satisfaction. The authors state that these technologies still need validation for family planning.
RRM Context
Women with PCOS (also called PMOS), endometriosis and infertility mostly said tracking helped lead to their diagnosis. Cycle charting gives cycle-by-cycle information. Restorative reproductive medicine uses it to find root causes. The authors also point to a gap in testing these tools in women with irregular cycles.
Our editorial summary of this paper, not the article's abstract.
Abstract
Background and Objectives
Digital health and personalized medicine are advancing at an unprecedented pace. Users can document their menstrual cycle data in a variety of ways, including smartphone applications (apps), temperature tracking devices, and at-home urine hormone tests. Understanding the needs and goals of women using menstrual cycle tracking technologies is the first step to making these technologies more evidence based. The purpose of this study was to examine the current use of these technologies and explore how they are being used within the context of common hormonal and reproductive disorders, like polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), endometriosis, and infertility.
Materials and Methods
This was a cross-sectional study evaluating menstrual cycle tracking technology use. Participants were recruited in January–March 2023 using social media groups and a Marquette Method instructor email listserv. Data were collected using an electronic survey with Qualtrics. Data collected included participant demographics, menstrual cycle characteristics, reproductive health history, and menstrual cycle tracking behavior.
Results
Three-hundred and sixty-eight participants were included in the analysis. Women had various motivations for tracking their menstrual cycles. Most participants (72.8%) selected “to avoid getting pregnant” as the primary motivation. Three hundred and fifty-six participants (96.7%) reported using a fertility awareness-based method to track and interpret their menstrual cycle data. The Marquette Method, which utilizes urine hormone tracking, was the most frequently used method (n = 274, 68.2%). The most frequently used cycle technology was a urine hormone test or monitor (n = 299, 81.3%), followed by a smartphone app (n = 253, 68.8%), and a temperature tracking device (n = 116, 31.5%). Women with PCOS (63.6%), endometriosis (61.8%), and infertility (75%) in our study reported that the use of tracking technologies aided in the diagnosis. Most participants (87.2%) reported a high degree of satisfaction with their use and that they contributed to their reproductive health knowledge (73.9%).
Conclusions
Women in our study reported avoiding pregnancy as their primary motivation for using menstrual cycle tracking technologies, with the most frequently used being a urine hormone test or monitor. Our study results emphasize the need to validate these technologies to support their use for family planning. Given that most women in this study reported using a fertility awareness-based method, the results cannot be generalized to all users of menstrual cycle tracking technologies.
