theguardian.com
Unregulated Period-Tracking Apps Fuel Rise in Unplanned Pregnancies in UK
Millions of UK women use period-tracking apps for contraception, but many are unregulated and make inaccurate predictions, leading to a rise in unplanned pregnancies and calls for stricter regulation.
- What are the immediate consequences of inaccurate fertility predictions by period-tracking apps in the UK?
- Period-tracking apps, widely used by UK women, often inaccurately predict fertile windows, leading to unplanned pregnancies. A study showed a rise in women using natural methods for contraception, resulting in higher abortion rates. Many apps lack proper regulation and make misleading claims about their effectiveness.
- How does the rise in women using "natural contraception" relate to the increasing number of unplanned pregnancies?
- Millions use period-tracking apps for contraception, despite many being unregulated and using unreliable data. This trend correlates with a rise in unintended pregnancies among those using natural family planning methods, as highlighted by a British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) study showing a 2.5% increase in women seeking abortions who reported using natural methods in 2023 compared to 2018. The apps' inaccurate predictions, often presented as definitive, expose women to higher pregnancy risk.
- What regulatory changes are needed to address the risks posed by unregulated period-tracking apps offering fertility predictions?
- The lack of regulation in the UK period-tracking app market poses significant risks to women's reproductive health. The inaccurate fertility predictions, coupled with misleading marketing, create a dangerous situation. Future impacts could include increased unintended pregnancies and the need for stricter regulations, including mandatory registration as medical devices and clear disclaimers against contraceptive use.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames period-tracking apps negatively, emphasizing their risks and inaccuracies while downplaying any potential benefits. The headline and introduction immediately highlight the dangers of unplanned pregnancy, setting a negative tone.
Language Bias
The article uses loaded language such as "misleading claims," "clear dangers," and "risky," creating a negative perception of period-tracking apps. More neutral terms like "inaccurate predictions," "potential risks," and "limitations" could be used.
Bias by Omission
The article omits discussion of the potential benefits of period-tracking apps, such as increased awareness of menstrual cycles and potential early detection of irregularities. It also doesn't explore the role of user error in inaccurate predictions, focusing primarily on app limitations.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the choice as between hormonal contraception and unreliable period-tracking apps, neglecting other contraceptive options like barrier methods or IUDs.
Gender Bias
The article focuses primarily on women's experiences and concerns regarding contraception and period-tracking apps. While this is appropriate given the topic, it could benefit from acknowledging the role men play in reproductive decisions and family planning.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the risk of unplanned pregnancies due to inaccurate predictions from fertility tracking apps. This directly impacts women's health and well-being, leading to potential physical and mental health consequences associated with unintended pregnancies and abortions. The rise in women using these apps as contraception, despite their unreliability, exacerbates this negative impact.