Efficacy of the Flo App in Improving Health Literacy, Menstrual and General Health, and Well-Being in Women: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Reproductive health literacy and menstrual health awareness play a crucial role in ensuring the health and well-being of women and people who menstruate. Further, awareness of one’s own menstrual cycle patterns and associated symptoms can help individuals identify and manage conditions of the menstrual cycle such as premenstrual syndrome (PMS) and premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD). Digital health products, and specifically menstrual health apps, have the potential to effect positive change due to their scalability and ease of access. Objective The primary aim of this study was to measure the efficacy of a menstrual and reproductive health app, Flo, in improving health literacy and health and well-being outcomes in menstruating individuals with and without PMS and PMDD. Further, we explored the possibility that the use of the Flo app could positively influence feelings around reproductive health management and communication about health, menstrual cycle stigma, unplanned pregnancies, quality of life, work productivity, absenteeism, and body image. Methods We conducted 2 pilot, 3-month, unblinded, 2-armed, remote randomized controlled trials on the effects of using the Flo app in a sample of US-based (1) individuals who track their cycles (n=321) or (2) individuals who track their cycles and are affected by PMS or PMDD (n=117). Results The findings revealed significant improvements at the end of the study period compared to baseline for our primary outcomes of health literacy (cycle tracking: D̄=1.11; t311=5.73, P<.001; PMS or PMDD: D̄=1.20; t115=3.76, P<.001) and menstrual health awareness (D̄=3.97; t311=7.71, P<.001), health and well-being (D̄=3.44; t311=5.94, P<.001), and PMS or PMDD symptoms burden (D̄=–7.08; t115=–5.44, P<.001). Improvements were also observed for our secondary outcomes of feelings of control and management over health (D̄=1.01; t311=5.08, P<.001), communication about health (D̄=0.93; t311=2.41, P=.002), menstrual cycle stigma (D̄=–0.61; t311=–2.73, P=.007), and fear of unplanned pregnancies (D̄=–0.22; t311=–2.11, P=.04) for those who track their cycles, as well as absenteeism from work and education due to PMS or PMDD (D̄=–1.67; t144=–2.49, P=.01). Conclusions These pilot randomized controlled trials demonstrate that the use of the Flo app improves menstrual health literacy and awareness, general health and well-being, and PMS or PMDD symptom burden. Considering the widespread use and affordability of the Flo app, these findings show promise for filling important gaps in current health care provisioning such as improving menstrual knowledge and health. Trial Registration OSF Registries osf.io/pcgw7; https://osf.io/pcgw7 ; OSF Registries osf.io/ry8vq; https://osf.io/ry8vq
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".