Evaluation of Menstrual Cycle Tracking Behaviors in the Ovulation and Menstruation Health Pilot Study: Cross-Sectional Study.

digital epidemiology gynecology health application mHealth menstrual health menstrual health tracking apps mobile health reproductive health reproductive informatics tracking health app women's health

Journal

Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
27 10 2023
Historique:
received: 24 08 2022
accepted: 29 09 2023
revised: 28 02 2023
medline: 30 10 2023
pubmed: 27 10 2023
entrez: 27 10 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Menstrual cycle tracking apps (MCTAs) have potential in epidemiological studies of women's health, facilitating real-time tracking of bleeding days and menstrual-associated signs and symptoms. However, information regarding the characteristics of MCTA users versus cycle nontrackers is limited, which may inform generalizability. We compared characteristics among individuals using MCTAs (app users), individuals who do not track their cycles (nontrackers), and those who used other forms of menstrual tracking (other trackers). The Ovulation and Menstruation Health Pilot Study tested the feasibility of a digitally enabled evaluation of menstrual health. Recruitment occurred between September 2017 and March 2018. Menstrual cycle tracking behavior, demographic, and general and reproductive health history data were collected from eligible individuals (females aged 18-45 years, comfortable communicating in English). Menstrual cycle tracking behavior was categorized in 3 ways: menstrual cycle tracking via app usage, that via other methods, and nontracking. Demographic factors, health conditions, and menstrual cycle characteristics were compared across the menstrual tracking method (app users vs nontrackers, app users vs other trackers, and other trackers vs nontrackers) were assessed using chi-square or Fisher exact tests. In total, 263 participants met the eligibility criteria and completed the digital survey. Most of the cohort (n=191, 72.6%) was 18-29 years old, predominantly White (n=170, 64.6%), had attained 4 years of college education or higher (n= 209, 79.5%), and had a household income below US $50,000 (n=123, 46.8%). Among all participants, 103 (39%) were MCTA users (app users), 97 (37%) did not engage in any tracking (nontrackers), and 63 (24%) used other forms of tracking (other trackers). Across all groups, no meaningful differences existed in race and ethnicity, household income, and education level. The proportion of ever-use of hormonal contraceptives was lower (n=74, 71.8% vs n=87, 90%, P=.001), lifetime smoking status was lower (n=6, 6% vs n=15, 17%, P=.04), and diagnosis rate of gastrointestinal reflux disease (GERD) was higher (n=25, 24.3% vs n=12, 12.4%, P=.04) in app users than in nontrackers. The proportions of hormonal contraceptives ever used and lifetime smoking status were both lower (n=74, 71.8% vs n=56, 88.9%, P=.01; n=6, 6% vs n=11, 17.5%, P=.02) in app users than in other trackers. Other trackers had lower proportions of ever-use of hormonal contraceptives (n=130, 78.3% vs n=87, 89.7%, P=.02) and higher diagnostic rates of heartburn or GERD (n=39, 23.5% vs n=12, 12.4%, P.03) and anxiety or panic disorder (n=64, 38.6% vs n=25, 25.8%, P=.04) than nontrackers. Menstrual cycle characteristics did not differ across all groups. Our results suggest that app users, other trackers, and nontrackers are largely comparable in demographic and menstrual cycle characteristics. Future studies should determine reasons for tracking and tracking-related behaviors to further understand whether individuals who use MCTAs are comparable to nontrackers.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Menstrual cycle tracking apps (MCTAs) have potential in epidemiological studies of women's health, facilitating real-time tracking of bleeding days and menstrual-associated signs and symptoms. However, information regarding the characteristics of MCTA users versus cycle nontrackers is limited, which may inform generalizability.
OBJECTIVE
We compared characteristics among individuals using MCTAs (app users), individuals who do not track their cycles (nontrackers), and those who used other forms of menstrual tracking (other trackers).
METHODS
The Ovulation and Menstruation Health Pilot Study tested the feasibility of a digitally enabled evaluation of menstrual health. Recruitment occurred between September 2017 and March 2018. Menstrual cycle tracking behavior, demographic, and general and reproductive health history data were collected from eligible individuals (females aged 18-45 years, comfortable communicating in English). Menstrual cycle tracking behavior was categorized in 3 ways: menstrual cycle tracking via app usage, that via other methods, and nontracking. Demographic factors, health conditions, and menstrual cycle characteristics were compared across the menstrual tracking method (app users vs nontrackers, app users vs other trackers, and other trackers vs nontrackers) were assessed using chi-square or Fisher exact tests.
RESULTS
In total, 263 participants met the eligibility criteria and completed the digital survey. Most of the cohort (n=191, 72.6%) was 18-29 years old, predominantly White (n=170, 64.6%), had attained 4 years of college education or higher (n= 209, 79.5%), and had a household income below US $50,000 (n=123, 46.8%). Among all participants, 103 (39%) were MCTA users (app users), 97 (37%) did not engage in any tracking (nontrackers), and 63 (24%) used other forms of tracking (other trackers). Across all groups, no meaningful differences existed in race and ethnicity, household income, and education level. The proportion of ever-use of hormonal contraceptives was lower (n=74, 71.8% vs n=87, 90%, P=.001), lifetime smoking status was lower (n=6, 6% vs n=15, 17%, P=.04), and diagnosis rate of gastrointestinal reflux disease (GERD) was higher (n=25, 24.3% vs n=12, 12.4%, P=.04) in app users than in nontrackers. The proportions of hormonal contraceptives ever used and lifetime smoking status were both lower (n=74, 71.8% vs n=56, 88.9%, P=.01; n=6, 6% vs n=11, 17.5%, P=.02) in app users than in other trackers. Other trackers had lower proportions of ever-use of hormonal contraceptives (n=130, 78.3% vs n=87, 89.7%, P=.02) and higher diagnostic rates of heartburn or GERD (n=39, 23.5% vs n=12, 12.4%, P.03) and anxiety or panic disorder (n=64, 38.6% vs n=25, 25.8%, P=.04) than nontrackers. Menstrual cycle characteristics did not differ across all groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results suggest that app users, other trackers, and nontrackers are largely comparable in demographic and menstrual cycle characteristics. Future studies should determine reasons for tracking and tracking-related behaviors to further understand whether individuals who use MCTAs are comparable to nontrackers.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37889545
pii: v25i1e42164
doi: 10.2196/42164
pmc: PMC10638629
doi:

Substances chimiques

Contraceptive Agents 0

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e42164

Subventions

Organisme : NIEHS NIH HHS
ID : T32 ES007069
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIEHS NIH HHS
ID : P30 ES000002
Pays : United States

Informations de copyright

©Tatheer Adnan, Huichu Li, Komal Peer, Elizabeth Peebles, Kaitlyn James, Shruthi Mahalingaiah. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 27.10.2023.

Références

Proc SIGCHI Conf Hum Factor Comput Syst. 2017 May 2;2017:6876-6888
pubmed: 28516176
NPJ Digit Med. 2020 May 26;3:79
pubmed: 32509976
NPJ Digit Med. 2019 Aug 27;2:83
pubmed: 31482137
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2021 Dec 28;29(1):3-11
pubmed: 34534312
Curr Epidemiol Rep. 2021 Mar;8(1):9-19
pubmed: 34055569
NPJ Digit Med. 2019 Jul 16;2:64
pubmed: 31341953
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Apr 16;23(4):e24716
pubmed: 33861203
JMIR Form Res. 2020 May 14;4(5):e15094
pubmed: 32406861

Auteurs

Tatheer Adnan (T)

Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States.

Huichu Li (H)

Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States.

Komal Peer (K)

Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States.

Elizabeth Peebles (E)

Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States.

Kaitlyn James (K)

Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.

Shruthi Mahalingaiah (S)

Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH