The illusion of empowerment: commercializing women’s health in the digital age.

The illusion of empowerment: commercializing women’s health in the digital age - PMC Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Search Log in Primary site navigation Search Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice editorial Health Promot Int . 2026 May 29;41(3):daag074. doi: 10.1093/heapro/daag074 The illusion of empowerment: commercializing women’s health in the digital age Brooke Nickel 1, ✉ , Tessa Copp 2 , Barbara Mintzes 3 Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Edward Ford Building (A27), Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia 2 Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Edward Ford Building (A27), Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia 3 School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Susan Wakil Health Building (D18), The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia ✉ Corresponding author. Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, 127A Edward Ford Building (A27), Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. E-mail: brooke.nickel@sydney.edu.au Collection date 2026 Jun. © The Author(s) 2026. Published by Oxford University Press. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13221701  PMID: 42216837 Women’s health has long been under-researched, under-funded, and structurally marginalized ( Sugimoto et al. 2019 , Regensteiner et al. 2025 , World Health Organisation 2026 ). From systematic exclusion from clinical trials to persistent diagnostic delays in conditions such as heart disease ( Mikhail 2005 , Nadarajah et al. 2023 ) and endometriosis ( Harrilal-Maharaj 2025 ), the knowledge gaps are well documented. However, alongside the advancement of the digital age, rapidly expanding commercial markets promise to close these gaps not through enhanced evidence and structural reform, but through products and services ( McCarthy et al . 2023 , Brassart Olsen 2024 , Wood et al. 2025 ). Direct-to-consumer marketing and digital technologies (‘FemTech’) have been framed as a revolution in women’s autonomy, with women encouraged to track, test, optimize, and take control of their health through various interventions ( Polis et al. 2026 ). Yet what is presented as empowerment may also represent a privatized response driving a market that monetizes unmet need while shifting responsibility from health systems to the individual woman ( Copp et al. 2024 , Berry 2025 , Mintzes 2025 ). The intention is not to dismiss innovation or question women’s autonomy, as many women report positive experiences with these products and services. Rather, the concern lies not with their existence, but with the ways in which they are being framed, positioned, and marketed to women. Here we present four case studies to show how unmet needs of women have become a commercial opportunity in the digital age. Data as empowerment: fertility and cycle tracking apps The use of fertility and cycle tracking apps has exponentially increased since their release over a decade ago ( Bull et al. 2019 , Rampazzo et al. 2024 ). These apps are marketed as tools for women’s bodily literacy, promising insight into ovulation, cycle regularity, mood, and fertility windows to ‘know your body better’ and ‘take control of your reproductive health’ through data ( Graham et al. 2026a ). For many women, these tools do provide value as they can support knowledge of cycle length, conception and contraception planning, and awareness of signs and symptoms ( Broad et al. 2022 , Riley and Paskova 2022 , Arbeena et al. 2025 , O’Brien and Iriarte 2025 ). However, the empowerment narrative of these apps glosses over key limitations ( Graham et al. 2026a ), with studies finding the apps’ predictive algorithms are inaccurate for the majority of women, especially those with irregular or varied cycles ( Earle et al. 2021 , Worsfold et al. 2021 , Patel et al. 2024 ). These ovulation predictions are probabilistic, not diagnostic, and provide a perception of precision that may generate misplaced confidence for women or unnecessary anxiety ( Broad et al. 2022 , Riley and Paskova 2022 , Arbeena et al. 2025 , O’Brien and Iriarte 2025 ). More fundamentally, these apps reframe healthcare access as self-surveillance ( Kreitmair 2024 , Sheridan Clay et al. 2025 ). Responsibility for meeting women’s needs or identifying any underlying abnormality shifts from clinicians and systems to the individual woman, who must interpret their own charts, fluctuations, and risk scores. Again, for some women this can be empowering, e.g. if a woman enters her data correctly, and understands and uses the apps’ predictions as a guide to support identification of her physical signs of ovulation, or takes her tracked menstrual cycle history to her clinician to support diagnosis and treatment, but for others it may lead to further confusion or anxiety ( Patel et al. 2024 ). Furthermore, women’s individual reproductive data becomes a commercial asset. Even when privacy rules are technically followed, there is still an imbalance for women as they share their intimate health data ( Levy and Romo-Avilés 2019 , Patel et al. 2024 , Mohan and Jenkins 2025 ), while companies decide how to use it and profit from it. Diagnostic consumerism: direct-to-consumer hormone testing If apps offer women the chance to observe their bodies, direct-to-consumer tests offer the ability for women to diagnose themselves ( Gram et al. 2024 ). While the emergence of direct-to-consumer testing is not particularly new, companies are now selling at-home panels to women measuring cortisol, oestrogen, progesterone, and other markers ( Shih et al. 2023 , Christakis et al. 2025 ), often under the broad banner of identifying ‘hormone imbalance’ ( Ironmonger 2023 , Willis 2025 ). The concept is compelling as relatively normal changes and symptoms for women such as fatigue, weight fluctuation, low mood, or irregular cycles may often feel overlooked and be dismissed in traditional consultations. Therefore, an easy-to-use test that promises objective answers appears validating and may offer acknowledgment for women ( Ayala-Lopez and Nichols 2020 ). Yet the clinical utility and accuracy of many of these panels are uncertain outside specific, well-defined contexts ( Ho and Quick 2018 , Galior and Baumann 2020 , Gram et al. 2024 ). Hormones fluctuate across a women’s menstrual cycle and even throughout the day making a single-point measurements variable and difficult to interpret. Furthermore, what might be ‘balanced’ for one woman, could be different for another. Therefore, the idea that a woman’s hormones are ‘imbalanced’ is just a marketing term rather than a precise diagnosis leading the results to be overinterpretation of normal physiological variation. This can then lead to unnecessary anxiety and a cascade of unnecessary interventions for women including supplementation, repeat testing, or consultations leading to overdiagnosis and/or overuse ( Moynihan et al. 2012 , Brownlee et al. 2017 ), with many of these interventions offered by the same companies selling the tests ( Nickel et al. 2025a , 2025b , Gram et al. 2026 ). Online hype and unsubstantiated claims: monetizing menopause products and services The menopause market is also booming ( Marsh 2026 ). This includes both the growth of menopause-focused products and menopause-specific clinics. The online marketing behind these so-called interventions often portray a broad range of symptoms as being linked to menopause, including not only hot flushes (vasomotor symptoms) and vaginal dryness but forgetfulness, joint aches and pains, anxiety, and depression. The implication is that hormone treatments are effective for these symptoms, with individually compounded bioidentical hormones often promoted, despite a lack of evidence of greater effectiveness or safety than synthetic hormones and less controls over product quality ( Santoro et al. 2016 ). Growing concern about the quality of care, lack of clinical guidance, and inconsistent access to evidence-based treatments, combined with a surge in products marketed to women, prompted an Australian parliamentary inquiry into menopause in 2024 ( Randle et al. 2024 , Carbone 2025 ). These products, including herbal tablets and patches, teas, powdered drink supplements, herbal enemas, and cooling mists as well as hormonal supplements, offer women tailored solutions to, often mild and/or normal, concerns and symptoms with no evidence to support their use. This intense marketing does not only target women’s vulnerability at a time of midlife change but also creates the impression that ‘untreated’ menopause is a wholly negative experience that is strongly associated with future ill-health ( Wood et al. 2025 ). Unsubstantiated claims that menopause is linked to cognitive decline, brain fog, and higher risks of dementia or heart disease can easily be understood to suggest that hormone treatment is needed to mitigate these potential risks. In contrast, a systematic review of international menopause guidelines found that none of at least moderate quality listed cognitive symptoms or dementia prevention as an indication for hormone treatment ( Hemachandra et al. 2024 ). Hormone companies are therefore not allowed to promote their products for these uses. If a social media post is funded by a hormone companies, it also cannot legally promote these treatments for unapproved uses. However, these posts are not actively monitored by regulatory agencies and financial links to manufacturers, if present, may not be obvious. An analysis of Instagram menopause-related posts found that nearly half were advertisements ( Arseneau et al. 2021 ). The top four categories of advertisements were nondrug treatments, clinician services, fitness/life coaching, and pharmaceuticals. Moreover, framing menopause as a new frontier of innovation risks obscuring structural causes of neglect ( Thomas et al. 2024 ). The narrative here becomes one of disruption and entrepreneurial rescue, rather than of evidence-based solutions, sustained public investment, and health care workforce training around menopause ( The Lancet 2024 ). Reproductive timing as optimization: elective egg freezing Elective egg freezing extends the health empowerment narrative into life planning. Clinics and corporate benefit packages promote the technology as a way for women to take control of your reproductive timeline ( Bayefsky et al. 2020 , Beilby et al. 2020 , Hammarberg et al. 2025 ). In an era of delayed partnership and career precarity, the appeal is understandable. While this intervention can indeed expand reproductive options for some women, it is expensive, physically demanding, and far from guarantees future live birth. Evidence to date shows that only 11% of women return to use their frozen eggs, and just 28% of those women achieve a live birth ( Hirsch et al. 2024 ). Success rates vary with age at freezing and number of eggs retrieved, and marketing around egg freezing often highlights possibility more than the actual probability with success rates not clearly disclosed or masked by the overemphasis of the benefits ( Beilby et al. 2020 , Gürtin and Tiemann 2021 ). Egg freezing also reframes structural inequality as an individual biological challenge. Instead of transforming societal and workplace cultures that discourage pregnancy or caregiving, the burden shifts to women to preserve their fertility proactively ( Lacy-Nichols et al. 2022 ). While corporate sponsorship of egg freezing can signal support for choice, it also normalizes delayed childbearing in environments resistant to accommodating parental responsibilities. Here empowerment is entwined with biocapitalism, with reproductive potential becoming something to bank, store, and hedge, and the structural conditions that make women delay having babies when they are biologically better able remain largely unaddressed ( van de Wiel 2022 , Copp et al. 2024 , McGrew and Rodgers 2025 ). The amplification of empowerment through social media The rise of social media for health ( Powell and Pring 2024 ) has significantly intensified both the spread and the persuasive power of women’s health empowerment narratives, allowing commercial interventions to be delivered directly and continuously to women through highly targeted advertising and influencer-led promotions ( Nickel et al. 2025a , 2025b ). Algorithmic systems have the ability to curate content based on intimate data about women’s bodies, emotions, and life stages including fertility, pregnancy, or menopause and create a personalized stream of messages that frame commercial products and digital tools and services as timely, necessary, and even morally responsible choices ( John et al. 2025 ). Influencers and brand partnerships further blur the boundary between peer support, health advice, and marketing, presenting sponsored content in an informal and relational style that can obscure commercial interests and amplify claims of empowerment, self-care, and personal optimization ( Heiss et al. 2025 ). The social media environment therefore increases the risk that women are exposed to misleading or overstated health claims about effectiveness, safety, and clinical legitimacy. This is particularly evident when promotional content draws on anecdotal success stories ( Richter et al. 2026 ) which can shape beliefs about treatment efficacy, treatment choices, and attitudes to health messages ( Graham et al. 2026b ). At the same time, regulatory frameworks have struggled to keep pace with the speed, scale, and global nature of digital marketing practices. Disclosure requirements, advertising standards, and health product regulations are often inconsistently applied or weakly enforced online, leaving significant gaps in oversight. As a result, responsibility for evaluating credibility and risk is shifted onto individual women, rather than being safeguarded through robust public regulation ( Gram et al. 2025 ). This further entrenches a market-driven model of women’s health in which commercial narratives around empowerment circulate faster and more visibly than evidence-based information, reinforcing the normalization of consumer solutions while regulatory and institutional responses lag behind. Reclaiming true empowerment Marketing of women’s health products and services with messages of empowerment are now commonly linked (Copp et al. 2024) . This is not to deny innovation or dismiss women’s agency as many women do report benefit from the products, tools and services being marketed ( Grace et al. 2025 ). Again, the issue is not their existence, but how they are framed and marketed to women. When empowerment is equated with consumption and self-tracking and self-funding is considered autonomy, structural reform for women does not remain a priority and may be left behind or even get dismissed. Women also need access to accurate information on when medical care is or is not needed and on the balance of potential benefits and harms of interventions. This framing of empowerment as access to products and services also widens inequity as those women with resources are able to access enhanced versions of care, while others remain underserved. At the same time, political urgency to invest in robust, evidence-based women’s health services weakens as market-based solutions appear readily available, and ongoing gaps in public provision become easier to overlook. True empowerment in women’s health would mean adequately funded research, equitable access to high-value care, accountability for data governance, transparent regulation of digital tools, and both top-down policy regulation and industry self-regulation of the misleading social media promotion of products and services. This would help to shift responsibility back towards systems rather than further onto women who are often already navigating complex biological and social pressures ( Kickbusch and Holly 2023 ). While some digital innovations for women do hold promise, with vested interest driving investment in many of these and little structural commitment, the illusion of empowerment will continue to obscure evidence-based solutions and care for women. We must now begin to rebuild confidence in women’s health ( Purnat et al. 2026 ) to improve trust and evidence-based care in the digital age for all women. Contributor Information Brooke Nickel, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Edward Ford Building (A27), Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. Tessa Copp, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Edward Ford Building (A27), Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. Barbara Mintzes, School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Susan Wakil Health Building (D18), The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. Author contributions All authors contributed to the conceptualization, drafting, and revising of this manuscript, and have approved the submitted version and agree to be accountable for all aspects of this work. Conflicts of interest None declared. Funding B.N. and T.C. are supported by National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Investigator Grants (1194108 and 2009419). Ethical approval This manuscript does not include original data and thus did not require ethical approval. Data availability No new data were generated or analysed in support of this research. References Arbeena, Asif  M, Wani  MI. Menstrual health in the digital age: a qualitative study of motivations for using period-tracking apps by women in Kashmir. Womens Reprod Health  2025;12:81–99. 10.1080/23293691.2024.2381036 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Arseneau  ME, Backonja  U, Litchman  ML  et al.  #Menopause on Instagram: a mixed-methods study. Menopause  2021;28:391–9. 10.1097/gme.0000000000001713 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Ayala-Lopez  N, Nichols  JH. Benefits and risks of direct-to-consumer testing. Arch Pathol Lab Med  2020;144:1193–8. 10.5858/arpa.2020-0078-RA [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Bayefsky  MJ, DeCherney  AH, King  LP. Respecting autonomy—a call for truth in commercial advertising for planned oocyte cryopreservation. Fertil Steril  2020;113:743–4. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.07.260 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Beilby  K, Dudink  I, Kablar  D  et al.  The quality of information about elective oocyte cryopreservation (EOC) on Australian fertility clinic websites. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol  2020;60:605–9. 10.1111/ajo.13174 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Berry  S. 2025. Beware the money trail and promises of femtech, experts warn . https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/health-and-wellness/beware-the-money-trail-and-promises-of-femtech-experts-warn-20251126-p5nijv.html (3 March 2026, date last accessed). Brassart Olsen  C. Addressing the commercial determinants of menstrual health: a call to regulate menstrual product manufacturers. Health Promotion International  2024;39:daae154. doi: 10.1093/heapro/daae154 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Broad  A, Biswakarma  R, Harper  JC. A survey of women’s experiences of using period tracker applications: attitudes, ovulation prediction and how the accuracy of the app in predicting period start dates affects their feelings and behaviours. Womens Health  2022;18:17455057221095246. 10.1177/17455057221095246 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Brownlee  S, Chalkidou  K, Doust  J  et al.  Evidence for overuse of medical services around the world. Lancet  2017;390:156–68. 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32585-5 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Bull  JR, Rowland  SP, Scherwitzl  EB  et al.  Real-world menstrual cycle characteristics of more than 600,000 menstrual cycles. NPJ Digit Med  2019;2:83. 10.1038/s41746-019-0152-7 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Carbone  I. 8 August 2025. Women ‘bombarded’ on social media by untested claims about menopause products, Senate inquiry hears . https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-08/women-on-social-media-bombarded-with-menopause-product-marketing/104197168 (30 March, date last accessed). Christakis  MK, Roebotham  T, Sterry  S  et al.  Menopause misinformation is harming care. BMJ  2025;390:r1695. 10.1136/bmj.r1695 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Copp  T, Pickles  K, Smith  J  et al.  Marketing empowerment: how corporations co-opt feminist narratives to promote non-evidence based health interventions. BMJ  2024;384:e076710. 10.1136/bmj-2023-076710 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Earle  S, Marston  HR, Hadley  R  et al.  Use of menstruation and fertility app trackers: a scoping review of the evidence. BMJ Sex Reprod Health  2021;47:90–101. 10.1136/bmjsrh-2019-200488 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Galior  KD, Baumann  NA. Challenges with at-home and mail-in direct-to-consumer testing: preanalytical error, reporting results, and result interpretation. Clin Lab Med  2020;40:25–36. 10.1016/j.cll.2019.11.006 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Grace  B, Wise  LA, Nieroda  M  et al.  Digital health technologies to transform women’s health innovation and inclusive research. BMJ  2025;391:e085682. 10.1136/bmj-2025-085682 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Graham  A, Nickel  B, Chen  X  et al.  The need for transparency in the promotion of popular period tracker applications (apps): a content analysis of their app store descriptions. Human Fertil  2026a;29:2607988. 10.1080/14647273.2025.2607988 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Graham  A, Nickel  B, McCaffery  K  et al.  Social media health information formats and endometriosis treatment seeking intentions: a randomized-controlled trial. Med Decis Making  2026b:272989X261436847. 10.1177/0272989X261436847 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Gram  EG, Copp  T, Ransohoff  DF  et al.  Direct-to-consumer tests: emerging trends are cause for concern. BMJ  2024;387:e080460. 10.1136/bmj-2024-080460 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Gram  EG, Mintzes  B, Copp  T  et al.  Selling masculinity—a qualitative analysis of gender representations in social media content about “low T”. Soc Sci Med  2026;393:118903. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.118903 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Gram  EG, Moynihan  R, Copp  T  et al.  Addressing misleading medical information on social media: a scoping review of current interventions. BMJ Evid Based Med  2025;30:420–33. 10.1136/bmjebm-2025-113704 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Gürtin  ZB, Tiemann  E. The marketing of elective egg freezing: a content, cost and quality analysis of UK fertility clinic websites. Reprod Biomed Soc Online  2021;12:56–68. 10.1016/j.rbms.2020.10.004 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Hammarberg  K, He  P, Mantha  S  et al.  Information about elective egg freezing on Instagram reels: a content review. J Assist Reprod Genet  2025;42:4439–46. 10.1007/s10815-025-03723-y [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Harrilal-Maharaj  K. Gender bias and diagnostic delays in young women: a narrative review. Cureus  2025;17:e100004. 10.7759/cureus.100004 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Heiss  R, Woloshin  S, Dave  S  et al.  Responding to public health challenges of medical advice from social media influencers. BMJ  2025;391:e086061. 10.1136/bmj-2025-086061 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Hemachandra  C, Taylor  S, Islam  RM  et al.  A systematic review and critical appraisal of menopause guidelines. BMJ Sex Reprod Health  2024;50:122–38. 10.1136/bmjsrh-2023-202099 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Hirsch  A, Hirsh Raccah  B, Rotem  R  et al.  Planned oocyte cryopreservation: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Hum Reprod Update  2024;30:558–68. 10.1093/humupd/dmae009 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Ho  A, Quick  O. Leaving patients to their own devices? Smart technology, safety and therapeutic relationships. BMC Med Ethics  2018;19:18. 10.1186/s12910-018-0255-8 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Ironmonger  L. 2023. No, you don ’ t need to worry about ‘balancing’ your hormones . https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/health-and-wellness/no-you-don-t-need-to-worry-about-balancing-your-hormones-20230807-p5dujc.html (3 March 2026, date last accessed). John  JN, Gorman  S, Scales  D  et al.  Online misleading information about women’s reproductive health: a narrative review. J Gen Intern Med  2025;40:1123–31. 10.1007/s11606-024-09118-6 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Kickbusch  I, Holly  L. Addressing the digital determinants of health: health promotion must lead the charge. Health Promot Int  2023;38:daad059. 10.1093/heapro/daad059 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Kreitmair  KV. Mobile health technology and empowerment. Bioethics  2024;38:481–90. 10.1111/bioe.13157 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Lacy-Nichols  J, Marten  R, Crosbie  E  et al.  The public health playbook: ideas for challenging the corporate playbook. Lancet Glob Health  2022;10:e1067–72. 10.1016/S2214-109X(22)00185-1 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Levy  J, Romo-Avilés  N. A good little tool to get to know yourself a bit better”: a qualitative study on users’ experiences of app-supported menstrual tracking in Europe. BMC Public Health  2019;19:1213. 10.1186/s12889-019-7549-8 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Marsh  S. 2026. ‘ Menopause gold rush’? Boom in hi-tech products as stigma starts to recede . https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/feb/01/menopause-gold-rush-experts-warn-of-brands-cashing-in-on-womens-symptoms (3 March 2026, date last accessed). McCarthy  S., Pitt  H., Hennessy  M.  et al.  Women and the commercial determinants of health. Health Promotion International  2023;38:1. 10.1093/heapro/daad076 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] McGrew  A, Rodgers  YM. Who benefits? Employer subsidization of reproductive healthcare and implications for reproductive justice. Fem Econ  2025;31:53–78. 10.1080/13545701.2025.2458271 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Mikhail  GW. Coronary heart disease in women. BMJ  2005;331:467–8. 10.1136/bmj.331.7515.467 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Mintzes  B. Use of feminist empowerment messages to sell tests and treatments. Drug Ther Bull  2025;63:50. 10.1136/dtb.2024.000074 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Mohan  S, Jenkins  J. Flowing data: women’s views and experiences on privacy and data security when using menstrual cycle tracking apps. Oxf Open Digit Health  2025;3:oqaf011. 10.1093/oodh/oqaf011 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Moynihan  R, Doust  J, Henry  D. Preventing overdiagnosis: how to stop harming the healthy. BMJ  2012;344:e3502. 10.1136/bmj.e3502 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Nadarajah  R, Farooq  M, Raveendra  K  et al.  Inequalities in care delivery and outcomes for myocardial infarction, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and aortic stenosis in the United Kingdom. Lancet Reg Health Europe  2023;33:100719. 10.1016/j.lanepe.2023.100719 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Nickel  B, Copp  T, Gram  E  et al.  Social media marketing of non-evidence-based women’s health interventions: protocol for a content analysis using participatory research methods [protocol]. JMIR Res Protoc  2025a;14:e76750. 10.2196/76750 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Nickel  B, Moynihan  R, Gram  EG  et al.  Social media posts about medical tests with potential for overdiagnosis. JAMA Netw Open  2025b;8:e2461940. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.61940 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] O’Brien  B, Iriarte  EG. Periods, technology and identity: the experience of period-tracking app users. Irish J Sociol  2025;33:231–53. 10.1177/07916035251338808 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Patel  U, Broad  A, Biswakarma  R  et al.  Experiences of users of period tracking apps: which app, frequency of use, data input and output and attitudes. Reprod Biomed Online  2024;48:103599. 10.1016/j.rbmo.2023.103599 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Polis  CB, Simmons  RG, Cason  P  et al.  Editorial: contraception special issue on the emergence of “FemTech” within the sexual and reproductive health landscape. Contraception  2026;157:111390. 10.1016/j.contraception.2026.111390 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Powell  J, Pring  T. The impact of social media influencers on health outcomes: systematic review. Soc Sci Med  2024;340:116472. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116472 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Purnat  TD, Wilhelm  E, Lihemo  G  et al.  Trust is a verb: how to reimagine confidence in health systems. Health Promot Int  2026;41:daaf1235. 10.1093/heapro/daaf1235 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Rampazzo  F, Raybould  A, Rampazzo  P  et al.  UPDATE: I’m pregnant!”: inferring global downloads and reasons for using menstrual tracking apps. Digit Health  2024;10:20552076241298315. 10.1177/20552076241298315 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Randle  M, Mintzes  B, McCarthy  S  et al.  Conflicts of interest in submissions and testimonies to an Australian parliamentary inquiry on menopause. Health Promot Int  2024;39:daae150. 10.1093/heapro/daae150 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Regensteiner  JG, McNeil  M, Faubion  SS  et al.  Barriers and solutions in women’s health research and clinical care: a call to action. Lancet Reg Health Am  2025;44:101037. 10.1016/j.lana.2025.101037 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Richter  S, Richter  A, Franklin  D. Sticky narratives: how micro-influencers engage and retain their audience through storytelling. Australas Mark J  2026;34:103–16. 10.1177/14413582251340442 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Riley  S, Paskova  K. A post-phenomenological analysis of using menstruation tracking apps for the management of premenstrual syndrome. Digit Health  2022;8:20552076221144199. 10.1177/20552076221144199 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Santoro  N, Braunstein  GD, Butts  CL  et al.  Compounded bioidentical hormones in endocrinology practice: an endocrine society scientific statement. J Clin Endocrinol Metab  2016;101:1318–43. 10.1210/jc.2016-1271 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Sheridan Clay  K, Ziebland  S, Powell  J. Algorithms, allyship, and advice: a qualitative analysis of fertility tracker marketing. Digit Health  2025;11:20552076251356395. 10.1177/20552076251356395 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Shih  P, Ding  P, Carter  SM  et al.  Direct-to-consumer tests advertised online in Australia and their implications for medical overuse: systematic online review and a typology of clinical utility. BMJ Open  2023;12:e074205. 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-074205 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Sugimoto  CR, Ahn  Y-Y, Smith  E  et al.  Factors affecting sex-related reporting in medical research: a cross-disciplinary bibliometric analysis. Lancet  2019;393:550–9. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32995-7 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] The Lancet . Time for a balanced conversation about menopause. Lancet  2024;403:877. 10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00462-8 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] The World Health Organization . 2026. Women’s Health . https://www.who.int/health-topics/women-s-health (3 March 2026, date last accessed). Thomas  SL, Randle  M, White  SL. (Re) framing menopause: a comprehensive public health approach. Health Promot Int  2024;39:daae052. 10.1093/heapro/daae052 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] van de Wiel  L. Disrupting the biological clock: fertility benefits, egg freezing and proactive fertility management. Reprod Biomed Soc Online  2022;14:239–50. 10.1016/j.rbms.2021.11.004 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Willis  O. 2025. What does it mean to ‘balance’ your hormones? Women's health experts separate hormone fact from fiction . https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2025-02-20/hormone-balancing-fertility-supplements-womens-health-pregnancy/104899050 (3 March 2026, date last accessed). Wood  K, McCarthy  S, Pitt  H  et al.  It’s all about the money.” Australian women’s perspectives about menopause and the commercial determinants of health. Health Promot Int  2025;40:daaf168. 10.1093/heapro/daaf168 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Worsfold  L, Marriott  L, Johnson  S  et al.  Period tracker applications: what menstrual cycle information are they giving women?  Womens Health  2021;17:17455065211049905. 10.1177/17455065211049905 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. Data Availability Statement No new data were generated or analysed in support of this research. Articles from Health Promotion International are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (254.7 KB) Cite Collections Permalink RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top

Related documents

• Co-designing Participatory Strategies with Older Adults: Reducing Perceived Risk and Promoting Digital Inclusion#464142
• World Digital Detox Program for Enhancing Women's Health & Well-being#835497
• Women's Safety in the Digital Age: A Sociological Study#1169587
• Exploring the Relationship between Health Information Literacy and Health Behaviors of the Elderly#491083
• How does digital financial inclusion affect the health of older adults? Evidence from China.#334950