ArticleDigital health
A post-phenomenological analysis of using menstruation tracking apps for the management of premenstrual syndrome.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The illusion of empowerment: commercializing women's health in the digital age.Health promotion international · 2026Article
- Postfeminist Healthism: Understanding the Gendering of Healthism Using Menstrual Tracking Apps as an Example.Sociology of health & illness · 2025Article
- Transforming women's health, empowerment, and gender equality with digital health: evidence-based policy and practice.The Lancet. Digital health · 2025Review
- Motivations for Use, User Experience and Quality of Reproductive Health Mobile Applications in a Pre-Menopausal User Base: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Mobile applications available in Saudi Arabia for the management of Primary Dysmenorrhea: A quality review and content analysis.PloS one · 2025Article
- "UPDATE: I'm pregnant!": Inferring global downloads and reasons for using menstrual tracking apps.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Menstruation tracking digital applications (MTA) are a popular technology, yet there is a lacuna of research on how women use this technology for the management of PMS. Theoretical frameworks for understanding users' experiences are also underdeveloped in this nascent field. The objectives of the study were therefore twofold, to propose a theoretical framework for understanding women's use of MTA and apply it to the analysis of users' experiences in the management of PMS. Method: A novel theoretical framework was proposed, informed by post-phenomenology, postfeminist healthism, feminist new materialism and digital health technologies as public pedagogy. This framework focuses analytic attention on affective relationships between subjectivity, bodily sensations, digital technology, and discourse. It was used to structure the analysis of five in-depth timeline interviews with women in Aotearoa New Zealand who experienced benefits from using MTA to manage PMS symptoms. Results: Three pedagogical relationships were identified: a pedagogy of empowerment, where users learnt to control, predict and manage their PMS symptoms in line with healthism; a pedagogy of appreciation, where users learnt to understand their menstruating bodies as amazing, a valued part of them, and awe-inspiring that radically overturned past internalised stigma; and an 'untrustworthy teacher' who eroded this affirmative learning through inaccuracy, positioning users in dis-preferred categories, or being 'creepy'. Conclusions: MTA offers huge possibilities for challenging menstrual stigma that need to be nurtured, developed, and protected; and there are benefits for analysing MTA within wider scholarship on postfeminist healthism.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.