RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
A randomized trial of web-based fertility-tracking software and fecundability
Wise, L. A., Wang, T. R., Stanford, J. B., Wesselink, A. K., Ncube, C. N., Rothman, K. J., & Murray, E. J. (2023). A randomized trial of web-based fertility-tracking software and fecundability. Fertility and Sterility, 119(6), 1045-1056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2023.02.005
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of randomization to FertilityFriend.com (FF), a mobile computing fertility-tracking app, on fecundability.
DESIGN: Parallel non-blinded randomized controlled trial nested within Pregnancy Study Online (PRESTO), a North American preconception cohort.
SUBJECTS: Female participants aged 21-45 years attempting conception for ≤6 menstrual cycles at enrollment (2013-2019).
INTERVENTION: Randomization (1:1) of 5,532 participants to receive a premium FF subscription.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Fecundability (per-cycle probability of conception). Participants completed bimonthly follow-up questionnaires until pregnancy or a censoring event, whichever came first. We first performed an intent-to-treat analysis of the effect of FF randomization on fecundability. In secondary analyses, we used a per-protocol approach that accounted for adherence in each trial arm. In both analyses, we used proportional probabilities regression models to estimate fecundability ratios (FR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) comparing those randomized vs. not randomized, and applied inverse probability weights to account for loss-to-follow-up (intent-to-treat and per-protocol analyses) and adherence (per-protocol analyses only).
RESULTS: Using life-table methods, 64% of the 2,775 participants randomized to FF and 63% of the 2,767 participants not randomized to FF conceived during 12 cycles; these respective percentages were each 70% among those with 0-1 cycles of attempt time at enrollment. Of those randomized to FF, 72% were defined as adherent (68% of observed menstrual cycles). In intent-to-treat analyses, there was no appreciable association overall (FR=0.97, 95% CI: 0.90-1.04) or within strata of pregnancy attempt time at enrollment, age, education, or other characteristics. In per-protocol analyses, we observed little association overall (FR=1.06, 95% CI: 0.99-1.14), but weak-to-moderate positive associations among participants who had longer attempt times at enrollment (FR=1.15, 95% CI: 0.98-1.35 for 3-4 cycles; 1.14, 95% CI: 0.87-1.48 for 5-6 cycles), were aged <25 years (FR=1.29, 95% CI: 1.01-1.66), had ≤12 years of education (FR=1.32, 95% CI: 0.92-1.89), or were non-users of hormonal contraception within 3 months before enrollment (FR=1.10, 95% CI: 1.02-1.19).
CONCLUSION: No appreciable associations were observed in intent-to-treat analyses. In secondary per-protocol analyses that accounted for adherence, randomization to FF was associated with slightly greater fecundability among selected subgroups of participants; however, these results are susceptible to unmeasured confounding.
