Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30148140›Full record

ArticlemHealth2018

Market-testing a smartphone application for family planning: assessing potential of the CycleBeads app in seven countries through digital monitoring.

Liya T Haile, Hanley M Fultz, Rebecca G Simmons, Victoria Shelus

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in mHealth, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. A Tale as Old as Time: Contraception Concerns in the 21st Century.Open access journal of contraception · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Liya T HaileInstitute for Reproductive Health, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
Hanley M FultzInstitute for Reproductive Health, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
Rebecca G SimmonsDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Victoria ShelusGillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe advent of new technological approaches to family planning has the potential to address unmet need in low- and middle-income countries. Provision of fertility awareness-based apps have the ability to provide accessible, direct-to-user fertility information to help women achieve their reproductive goals. The CycleBeads app, a digital platform for the Standard Days Method (SDM), a modern method of family planning, helps women achieve or prevent pregnancy, or track their cycles using the only their period start dates.

methodsBrief social marketing campaigns were launched by the app developer to monitor cost and distribution of the CycleBeads app, understand the user profile, and assess user experience. Monitoring and evaluation through in-app micro surveys occurred over a 6-cycle period in seven countries: Egypt, Ghana, India, Jordan, Kenya, Nigeria, and Rwanda. In-app micro-surveys were utilized to collect data around demographics, mode of use of the app, prior experiences with family planning, and satisfaction to better understand women's interactions with the apps, and the possibility for meeting unmet need. Analyzes focused on women who were using the app to prevent pregnancy or track their cycles.

resultsSocial media campaigns proved to be an easy, low-cost approach to advertising the CycleBeads app. As a result, 356,520 women downloaded the app, and the cost to the advertiser per download ranged from $0.17-0.69. A majority of app users were between 20-29 years old, married or in exclusive relationships. Overall, 39.9% of users were using the app to prevent pregnancy, 38.5% to plan a pregnancy, and 21.6% were tracking their cycles. Among the users preventing pregnancy, 64.1% of women had not used a family planning method 3 months before downloading the CycleBeads app. One-third of users who were using the app to track their cycles, reported that they had not been using any form of family planning. In all seven countries, nearly 60% of women reported that they would definitely recommend the CycleBeads app to a friend, indicating their satisfaction with the app.

conclusionsOur main findings indicate that a social media campaign is a low-cost approach to making the CycleBeads app accessible to women. The app addresses multiple reproductive intentions and attracts a diverse demographic of users across different life stages. For many women the app was the first modern method they used in the last 3 months, showing that fertility awareness-based apps have the potential to address an unmet need. Future studies should focus on changes in behavior during the fertile window, partner communication, and future family planning intentions.

Indexed as

CycleBeads app monitoringfertility appmarket test of app

Identifiers

PMID30148140
PMCPMC6088200

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.