Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40053713›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Exploration of Reproductive Health Apps' Data Privacy Policies and the Risks Posed to Users: Qualitative Content Analysis.

Nina Zadushlivy, Rizwana Biviji, Karmen S Williams

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

3 authors.

Nina ZadushlivyDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy, City University of New York, New York, NY, United States.ORCID 0009-0005-0802-1345
Rizwana BivijiCollege of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3286-3332
Karmen S WilliamsDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy, City University of New York, New York, NY, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6545-8299

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMobile health apps often require the collection of identifiable information. Subsequently, this places users at significant risk of privacy breaches when the data are misused or not adequately stored and secured. These issues are especially concerning for users of reproductive health apps in the United States as protection of sensitive user information is affected by shifting governmental regulations such as the overruling of Roe v Wade and varying state-level abortion laws. Limited studies have analyzed the data privacy policies of these apps and considered the safety issues associated with a lack of user transparency and protection.

objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate popular reproductive health apps, assess their individual privacy policies, analyze federal and state data privacy laws governing these apps in the United States and the European Union (EU), and recommend best practices for users and app developers to ensure user data safety.

methodsIn total, 4 popular reproductive health apps-Clue, Flo, Period Tracker by GP Apps, and Stardust-as identified from multiple web sources were selected through convenience sampling. This selection ensured equal representation of apps based in the United States and the EU, facilitating a comparative analysis of data safety practices under differing privacy laws. A qualitative content analysis of the apps and a review of the literature on data use policies, governmental data privacy regulations, and best practices for mobile app data privacy were conducted between January 2023 and July 2023. The apps were downloaded and systematically evaluated using the Transparency, Health Content, Excellent Technical Content, Security/Privacy, Usability, Subjective (THESIS) evaluation tool to assess their privacy and security practices.

resultsThe overall privacy and security scores for the EU-based apps, Clue and Flo, were both 3.5 of 5. In contrast, the US-based apps, Period Tracker by GP Apps and Stardust, received scores of 2 and 4.5, respectively. Major concerns regarding privacy and data security primarily involved the apps' use of IP address tracking and the involvement of third parties for advertising and marketing purposes, as well as the potential misuse of data.

conclusionsCurrently, user expectations for data privacy in reproductive health apps are not being met. Despite stricter privacy policies, particularly with state-specific adaptations, apps must be transparent about data storage and third-party sharing even if just for marketing or analytical purposes. Given the sensitivity of reproductive health data and recent state restrictions on abortion, apps should minimize data collection, exceed encryption and anonymization standards, and reduce IP address tracking to better protect users.

Indexed as

Computer SecurityConfidentialityInternetMobile ApplicationsPolicyReproductive Health ServicesBenchmarkingEuropeEuropean UnionGovernment RegulationQualitative ResearchUnited StatesUser-Computer Interfacedata privacy policymenstrual healthmenstruating persons’ healthmHealthmobile healthmobile phonereproductive health appsTHESISTHESIS evaluationTransparency, Health Content, Excellent Technical Content, Security/Privacy, Usability, Subjectivewomen’s health

Identifiers

PMID40053713
PMCPMC11923453

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.