April 4-6, 2024 • Hyatt Regency • Lexington, KY
Innovations in Health Communication
Innovations in Health Communication
Abstract: A New Cycle of Period Apps? Navigating Female Reproductive Health Data in the Post-Roe v. Wade Era
Background: The overturn of Roe v. Wade has called the management of female reproductive health data into question. Despite the rise of period-tracking apps as empowering tools for better body monitoring and conversations with providers, the future of women’s uses of health technology is unclear in the United States.
Objective: This study preliminarily explores the prevalence of period-tracking apps among premenopausal women (aged 18-49). Based on Social Cognitive Theory, it examines whether personal (e.g., family planning goals, self-care agency), clinical (e.g., perceived patient-centered communication), and political (e.g., reproductive policy) factors are at play in driving the use/non-use of period-tracking apps after the overturn of Roe v. Wade.
Method: In November 2023, we collected survey data from 485 premenopausal female participants using a crowdsourcing company, Dynata. We measured the participants’ demographic background (e.g., age, sex, education, physical and mental health), period-tracking app use in the past year, purposes of using a period-tracking app, likelihood of unexpected pregnancy, anxiety related to unexpected pregnancy, level of self-care agency, sense of privacy related to app use, perceived patient-centered communication, and strictness of the reproductive policy in the state.
Results: Descriptive analysis showed that over half of the female participants (n = 249, 51.3%) had used a period-tracking app in the past year. Most app users reported having “often” or “always” used their period-tracking apps (n = 121, 61%). Independent samples t-test showed that period-tracking app was more used in the states with no abortion ban in place (ΔM = .08, p < .05), compared to those with various levels of abortion bans. Multiple regression analyses showed that higher susceptibility of unintended pregnancy was associated with women’s using period-tracking apps to monitor fertile days (β = .16, p < .001), to set reminders for oral contraceptives (β = .1, p < .01), to monitor a pregnancy (β = .16, p < .001), to record discomfort during sexual activities (β = .13, p < .001), to record changed desires for sex (β = .1, p < .01), to track sexual activity (β = .08, p < .05), and to record STI-related physical symptoms (β = .08, p < .05). Self-care was positively associated with using a period-tracking app to seek sexual/reproductive health-related information (β = .45, p < .05). Finally, stricter abortion bans were related to more likelihood of using a period-tracking app to monitor a pregnancy (β = .17, p < .01).
Conclusion: Period-tracking apps are popular among women. While privacy concerns did not seem to play a role in women’s utility of period-tracking apps, these apps are less used in states where abortion bans are in place. Nevertheless, tracking technologies may be used to monitor pregnancy where abortion is banned. Ultimately, in the age of post Roe v. Wade, it is important to not only consider the functionality of female health apps but also ensure privacy around sensitive data.
Objective: This study preliminarily explores the prevalence of period-tracking apps among premenopausal women (aged 18-49). Based on Social Cognitive Theory, it examines whether personal (e.g., family planning goals, self-care agency), clinical (e.g., perceived patient-centered communication), and political (e.g., reproductive policy) factors are at play in driving the use/non-use of period-tracking apps after the overturn of Roe v. Wade.
Method: In November 2023, we collected survey data from 485 premenopausal female participants using a crowdsourcing company, Dynata. We measured the participants’ demographic background (e.g., age, sex, education, physical and mental health), period-tracking app use in the past year, purposes of using a period-tracking app, likelihood of unexpected pregnancy, anxiety related to unexpected pregnancy, level of self-care agency, sense of privacy related to app use, perceived patient-centered communication, and strictness of the reproductive policy in the state.
Results: Descriptive analysis showed that over half of the female participants (n = 249, 51.3%) had used a period-tracking app in the past year. Most app users reported having “often” or “always” used their period-tracking apps (n = 121, 61%). Independent samples t-test showed that period-tracking app was more used in the states with no abortion ban in place (ΔM = .08, p < .05), compared to those with various levels of abortion bans. Multiple regression analyses showed that higher susceptibility of unintended pregnancy was associated with women’s using period-tracking apps to monitor fertile days (β = .16, p < .001), to set reminders for oral contraceptives (β = .1, p < .01), to monitor a pregnancy (β = .16, p < .001), to record discomfort during sexual activities (β = .13, p < .001), to record changed desires for sex (β = .1, p < .01), to track sexual activity (β = .08, p < .05), and to record STI-related physical symptoms (β = .08, p < .05). Self-care was positively associated with using a period-tracking app to seek sexual/reproductive health-related information (β = .45, p < .05). Finally, stricter abortion bans were related to more likelihood of using a period-tracking app to monitor a pregnancy (β = .17, p < .01).
Conclusion: Period-tracking apps are popular among women. While privacy concerns did not seem to play a role in women’s utility of period-tracking apps, these apps are less used in states where abortion bans are in place. Nevertheless, tracking technologies may be used to monitor pregnancy where abortion is banned. Ultimately, in the age of post Roe v. Wade, it is important to not only consider the functionality of female health apps but also ensure privacy around sensitive data.