MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414203338 · doi:10.2196/79365

Technology-Related Trauma in Sexual and Reproductive Health Digital Technologies: Grounded Theory Study

2025· article· en· W4414203338 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Abdul‐Fatawu Abdulai, Janell C. Josephs, Adrian Guţă, Mark Gilbert, Vicky Bungay

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsBC Centre for Disease ControlUniversity of WindsorUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReproductive healthGrounded theoryDigital healthQualitative researchReproductive technologySexual assaultSexual abuse

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Digital health technologies are increasingly used as complementary and alternative means of seeking sexual and reproductive health services. These platforms now play a critical role in facilitating services such as contraception counseling, abortion care, sexually transmitted infection testing and treatment, and fertility-related support, particularly for individuals who face barriers to in-person care. Despite their increasing prevalence, there is an emerging concern that such platforms could inadvertently trigger or perpetuate trauma among end-user patients. This risk is particularly salient for individuals from equity-deserving populations who already navigate stigma, discrimination, or prior traumatic experiences in health care settings. Objective: This study aimed to develop a theoretical account of how digital health technologies can cause or perpetuate emotional trauma among people who seek technology-based sexual and reproductive health services. Methods: We used the Charmaz constructivist grounded theory approach by conducting interviews with 25 participants who have used government and other regulated digital health platforms (ie, web-based platforms and mHealth apps) to access sexual and reproductive health information or services including sexually transmitted infection testing, contraception, and abortion. Data analysis occurred alongside data collection, and data were analyzed inductively using open, axial, and theoretical coding. Results: We developed an explanatory model that shows that technology-related harm can occur in two main ways: (1) digital platform design features (ie, navigation challenges, data and security breaches, and inappropriate display of content) and (2) digital platform-related interpersonal interactions (targeted campaigns and depersonalized digital health interactions). While these activities can cause harm to users in general, they are more likely to result in emotional trauma for individuals with prior traumatic experiences and in emotional discomfort for those without such histories. Conclusions: Web-based platforms provide opportunities for advancing access to sexual and reproductive health and services. At the same time, these technologies can also serve as conduits through which trauma can be triggered, perpetuated, and exacerbated. While technology-related trauma could occur unintentionally via design choices, some activities, including technology-related interactions, could trigger or perpetuate trauma among end users. To mitigate the risks, both technology developers (particularly designers) and health providers should consider design choices and implementation strategies that not only prevent trauma but also promote users' emotional well-being.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.390 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207