Connect with us

Opinion

What is digital health and why is it important?

By Cindy Moy Carr, founder and CEO of Vorsdatter Limited

Published

on

When people think of digital health, they often think of Apple Watches and smartphone apps. They’re right, but those are only pieces of what digital health encompasses.

Broadly, digital health is any type of healthcare application that is software-based. That can include telemedicine, apps, smartwatches, and remote sensors.

The US Food and Drug Administration notes that “from mobile medical apps and software that support the clinical decisions doctors make every day to artificial intelligence and machine learning, digital technology has been driving a revolution in health care”.

Further, these include “computing platforms, connectivity, software, and sensors for health care and related uses”.

Five potential benefits

Although the potential benefits to patients and healthcare systems of digital health are complicated and far-reaching, they fall roughly into five categories.

  • Access to appropriate healthcare – Access to healthcare is unequal and can be limited by geography, socio-economic status, and cultural issues. In Ireland, Australia and New Zealand, for example, we have customers who live hours from the nearest GP. With digital health applications, people that would otherwise be isolated are now part of health-based communities, able to find information, support and resources.
  • Improved efficiency – The above examples also show how digital health applications can improve healthcare efficiency. It can simplify and streamline communication with healthcare providers and minimise unnecessary site visits. Our digital application focuses on perimenopause and menopause, where symptoms can be broad and generic, often seen with other indications — they can include dry eyes, headaches, and joint pain. In the UK, where patients don’t necessarily see the same physician, multiple visits for different symptoms may never be coordinated into an accurate diagnosis without a broader perspective and cross-communication.
  • Decrease costs – It should be obvious that improved efficiency should reduce costs. Certainly, by decreasing the amount of time a physician and staff spend on in-person patient visits, costs come down. But also, by more accurately and quickly diagnosing conditions, unnecessary procedures can be avoided.
  • Improved quality – Quality can have numerous definitions in terms of healthcare. The World Health Organization (WHO) identified six digital health domains of quality: patient safety, access to healthcare, effective treatment, efficient use of resources, equity of care across subgroups of populations and patient-centred care.

A 2022 review of 54 digital health studies published in Digital Health reported the most common (79.6 per cent) digital health technologies were mobile apps and computer-based programs.

The study found that the “majority of reviews describe improved health behaviour, enhanced assessment, treatment compliance, and better coordination as the main approach of quality improvement via digital health”.

With the wide adoption of electronic health records (EHR), patient and healthcare data already exist. But they aren’t being appropriately accessed, analysed, and linked to alerts to notify providers and patients that action is required.

In the Harvard Business Review, Glaser et al. described a 67-year-old woman who reported to the emergency department with abdominal pain and rectal bleeding.

Diagnosed with colorectal cancer, she died several weeks later after unsuccessful treatment. The woman had received the scheduled colonoscopies at ages 50 and 60.

A radiologist’s note had flagged a few seemingly minor irregularities that would have had her return at age 63, but the note was buried in the “Test Results” section of her EHR. Both she and her primary care physician missed the notification.

This is the sort of thing that digital health initiatives should be able to solve easily.

  • Personalised medicine -Personalised health care (PHC) is generally defined as a framework for patient care that links predictive technologies with an engaged patient to promote health and disease prevention. The Duke Center for Personalized Health Care described the goals of personalized health care (PHC) as focused “on patient-centred health care, personalised health planning (PHP), shared decision-making, and patient engagement”.

In addition to not treating health care as one-size-fits-all, the goal is to improve care effectiveness for people faster with lower costs and improved clinical outcomes.

It is believed — as in the case of the 67-year-old colorectal cancer described above — that new digital tools and programmes have the potential to be more sensitive to change that could complement traditional approaches.

Obstacles

Many of the necessary tools for broader implementation of effective digital health are already in existence: widespread use of EHRs, patient portals, a variety of digital and mobile apps and a patient population already accustomed to the use of digital systems.

These systems range from smartphones and apps, and digital wearables such as Fitbits, Garmin watches, and Apple Watches, to online shopping, banking, and bill-paying. But there is still a lot of infrastructure that needs to be constructed.

A 2021 study by the Pew Research Center found that as of February 2021, about 28 per cent of rural Americans and 23 per cent of urban residents did not have broadband internet.

Interoperability –  the ability of different systems, devices, applications or products to connect and communicate – is also a major challenge.

It’s not of use to have so much digital information in disparate silos if they can’t communicate or be accessed conveniently by a healthcare provider.

Cybersecurity is also a major area of concern. Privacy of health records has always been a priority, and digital health data only increases the risk of misuse.

Governments are making efforts in all those areas. The Biden administration’s American Jobs Plan infrastructure proposal included US$100bn earmarked for broadband expansion. It was part of the US$1.9tn American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 signed into law in March 2021.

The UK has made digital health and social care a top priority in 2022, with the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and NHS England saying the “system’s long-term sustainability depends on it”.

Part of the initiative is to digitise the health and social care records, with a goal of having core digital capabilities, including EHRs, in place by March 2025.

Why define digital health?

Too often, various stakeholders differ on the definition of digital health. When I go into a room with potential investors, they’re usually very excited about digital health.

They’ve heard about it, and want to get involved in it, but they don’t understand what it is. Is it software? Is it hardware? Is it mobile devices like the Apple Watch? Is it software used by a hospital? Is it implantable chips or a ring you wear on your finger? What is it?

Everyone involved in expanding digital health must understand what it is — and what it can be. Because what it can be is transformative, improving the quality of health care, and patient care, while driving efficiencies and reducing costs.

 

Cindy Moy Carr is the founder and CEO of Vorsdatter Limited which developed mySysters, an app for perimenopause and menopause. She’s an attorney and journalist who authored the American Bar Association’s Guide to Health Care Law.

Opinion

Femtech’s next chapter: Building a truly equal and comprehensive health tech category

Published

on

By Wolfgang Hackl, MD, CEO OncoGenomX, Allschwil, Switzerland

FemTech is moving from a promising niche to a foundational part of modern healthcare.

Over the next decade and beyond, its real promise will not only be better products, but a more equitable system: one where women’s health is treated as an equal area for innovation, investment, clinical care, and public policy.

That shift matters because women’s health has long been under-researched, underfunded, and too often managed through systems that were not designed with female biology and life stages in mind.

The opportunity now is to change that trajectory.

If stakeholders act deliberately, FemTech can become a category that improves outcomes, expands access, and creates measurable value across the HealthTech ecosystem.

From niche to infrastructure

The most important change ahead is a mindset shift. FemTech should no longer be seen as a narrow consumer segment focused only on logging symptoms.

It should be understood as health infrastructure spanning puberty, fertility, pregnancy, postpartum recovery, menopause, pelvic health, chronic disease, mental health, and long-term preventive care.

This broader framing creates a more durable market and a stronger social case. It also encourages innovation that serves people across the full life course, rather than only at highly visible moments.

In practical terms, this means building tools that are clinically relevant, integrated into care pathways, and designed to work for different populations and health systems.

What needs to change

For FemTech to become a truly equal healthcare category and a genuine societal priority, several layers need to move together.

First, the evidence base must deepen. More sex-disaggregated data, more women-inclusive clinical studies, and more research on conditions that disproportionately affect women are essential.

Without stronger evidence, product development, diagnosis, reimbursement, and clinical adoption all remain constrained.

Second, policy and regulation must mature. Privacy protections need to be strong enough to build trust in highly sensitive health data.

Regulatory pathways should be clear enough to help innovators bring safe, effective products to market without unnecessary delay.

Reimbursement frameworks also need to evolve so that useful digital tools are not limited to those who can pay out of pocket.

Third, healthcare systems must become more open to integration. The best FemTech products should not sit outside the care journey as standalone apps.

They should connect with clinicians, diagnostics, telehealth, and care coordination so that patients experience continuity rather than fragmentation.

Finally, society needs a broader cultural shift. Women’s health should be discussed as a mainstream public health and economic issue, not as a side topic or a private concern.

That means normalizing conversations around menopause, miscarriage, postpartum health, chronic pain, infertility, and long-term preventive care.

The role of each stakeholder

A healthier FemTech future depends on the full value chain.

Founders and product teams need to design for clinical relevance, usability, and trust. The strongest solutions will be those that solve real problems, use data responsibly, and fit into everyday life and care.

Investors can help by backing long-term value creation rather than only consumer growth. FemTech deserves capital that supports rigorous validation, regulatory readiness, and scalable business models.

Healthcare providers and systems play a critical role in adoption. By integrating FemTech into clinical workflows, they can reduce delays in care, improve monitoring, and make support more continuous and personalised.

Payers and insurers can accelerate access by recognising the downstream value of early intervention, prevention, and better self-management. Coverage decisions will strongly shape which innovations become standard practice.

Policymakers and regulators should create environments where safety, innovation, and privacy coexist. Clear standards and supportive reimbursement policy can make the difference between isolated success and category-wide growth.

Employers and public institutions also have a role. Women’s health affects productivity, retention, and long-term wellbeing, which means workplace benefits and public programs can help expand access and reduce inequity.

FemTech is not only “women for women.” It is “everyone to solve a health and social issue that has been ignored for far too long.”

When stakeholders across the value chain recognise women’s health as a shared responsibility, FemTech moves from a segmented category to a mainstream force for better outcomes, fairer access, and stronger social impact.

Why the upside is larger than the market

The benefit of getting this right is not only commercial.

Better women’s health tools can improve early detection, support self-management, reduce avoidable complications, and lower the burden on social and healthcare systems.

They can also help close persistent gaps in access and outcomes that affect families, workplaces, and economies.

For HealthTech innovators, this is an opportunity to build products that are both mission-driven and scalable. For health systems, it is a chance to improve care quality and efficiency. For society, it is a way to move women’s health from an afterthought to an equal priority.

Actions that will move the field forward

The right direction will not happen automatically. It requires deliberate action across the ecosystem.

  • Build products around real clinical needs, not only consumer engagement.
  • Invest in women-inclusive research and validation from the start.
  • Design privacy and governance into the product architecture.
  • Create reimbursement models that reward prevention and continuity.
  • Integrate FemTech into mainstream care pathways.
  • Expand education for clinicians, employers, and the public.
  • Expand the category to the invisible concerns to cover the full range of women’s health needs.

When these actions align, FemTech can mature into something larger than a market category. It can become a model for how health innovation should work: evidence-based, inclusive, trusted, and built to improve lives at scale.

A strong FemTech future is not just possible. It is a practical next step if the ecosystem chooses to treat women’s health as what it truly is: a core healthcare priority and a major driver of innovation.

Table: FemTech Focus Areas

FieldApproximate number of active solutions/companies
Reproductive health & fertility120+
Pregnancy & maternal care80+
Menstrual health60+
General women’s health & wellness50+
Diagnostics & monitoring45+
Menopause & perimenopause40+
Pelvic & uterine health30+
Chronic women’s health / integrated care30+
Sexual health & wellness25+

Legend: FemTech is becoming a multi-category healthcare layer. Reports also show that software/apps remain the largest product type overall, while reproductive health continues to dominate as an application area. Best-effort estimates based on category listings, company directories, and market reports, not audited totals.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Q1 momentum: Female founders are advancing, but the system still hasn’t caught up

Published

on

By Melissa Wallace, CEO Fierce Foundry

The first quarter of 2026 tells a familiar but evolving story for female founders in the U.S.: measurable progress, paired with persistent structural gaps.

On the surface, the numbers suggest momentum.

A recent Pitchbook report showed female-founded companies captured 27.7 per cent of U.S. venture capital in 2025, up significantly from 19.9 per cent the year prior.

This is not a marginal shift, it reflects a broader recognition that women are building scalable, investable companies across sectors.

But the deeper cut tells a different story.

When you isolate companies founded solely by women, funding drops to just 1.1 per cent of total venture dollars.

As many of us continue to preach, this gap has remained largely unchanged for decades, hovering around 2 per cent on average.

This is the paradox: performance is not the issue—access is.

Research consistently shows that women-led companies generate stronger capital efficiency, yet they continue to receive a fraction of funding.

As Leslie Feinzaig has pointed out, the challenge is not a lack of ambition or quality, it’s that the system still evaluates women through a narrower lens, often expecting more proof, more traction, and more certainty before capital is deployed.

A Shift in How Women Are Getting Funded

What’s changed in Q1—and what’s most important—is not just how much funding is flowing, but how it’s being accessed.

Based on the data shared by Forbes in their 6 Trends Reshaping Women’s Health Investments this is what is clear:

  • A rise of angel and operator capital: More women are entering the cap table as investors, not just founders, reshaping early-stage decision-making
  • Alternative vehicles gaining traction: Donor-advised funds (DAFs), syndicates, and community-driven capital pools are stepping in where traditional VC has been slow
  • Lower barriers to entry for investors: Smaller check sizes and structured angel education are expanding who participates in funding innovation

This diversification matters. Traditional venture capital has historically been concentrated both in who writes checks and what gets funded.

Broadening capital sources doesn’t just increase access; it changes what is considered “investable.”

At Fierce Foundry, this is a core assumption.

The venture studio model is not just about building companies, it’s about engineering capital access from day one.

By combining capital with shared services, investor networks, and early validation, the goal is to reduce the friction female founders face long before a Series A.

Why This Matters for Women’s Health

Nowhere is this shift more critical than in women’s health.

Despite being one of the fastest-growing sectors in healthcare, projected to exceed $200B globally in the next decade, FemTech and women’s health startups remain significantly underfunded. In 2024, only ~6 per cent of healthcare venture funding went to this category.

This disconnect is not due to lack of opportunity. In fact, the opposite is true.

Thanks to another incredible article from Geri Stenger in Forbes, we know women’s health has already generated over $100 billion in exits, with 27 billion-dollar transactions and increasing M&A activity.

This is not an emerging category, it is a proven one that has simply been misclassified, undercounted, and undervalued.

The implication is clear: capital is not flowing in proportion to outcomes.

The Role of New Models in Closing the Gap

This is where new models, particularly venture studios, are becoming essential.

The traditional startup pathway assumes equal access to networks, capital, and operational expertise.

Female founders, particularly in women’s health, are often navigating all three deficits simultaneously:

Limited access to early-stage capital

  • Higher burden of proof in clinical and regulatory environments
  • Fewer embedded operators with domain expertise
  • The studio model addresses this by collapsing time and risk:

Co-building companies alongside founders

  • Providing shared services across product, regulatory, and go-to-market
  • Embedding investor alignment and exit pathways from the beginning

What Q1 Signals for the Future

If Q1 tells us anything, it’s that the narrative is shifting but the infrastructure is still catching up.

We are seeing:

  • Increased participation of women across both sides of the cap table
  • New funding mechanisms that challenge traditional VC gatekeeping
  • Growing recognition that women’s health is not niche, but foundational

But we are also seeing that progress is uneven, and in many cases, still fragile.

The next phase of growth will not come from incremental increases in funding percentages.

It will come from rebuilding the systems that determine how capital flows in the first place. Because the real opportunity is not just funding more female founders.

It’s building an ecosystem where they don’t have to fight so hard to access what they’ve already proven they can return.

Learn more about Fierce Foundry at thefiercefoundry.com

Continue Reading

Opinion

India’s top court rejects menstrual leave petition

Published

on

India’s top court rejected a menstrual leave petition for women and female students, saying such a law could mean “no-one will hire women”.

The two-judge bench, headed by chief justice Surya Kant, said mandatory leave would make young women think they were “not at par” with their male colleagues and would be “harmful for their growth”.

The subject of menstrual leave has long divided opinion in India. While many agree with the judges’ view, others argue that a day or two off can help women manage painful periods.

Some states and a number of large private companies have already introduced menstrual leave for employees.

The court’s comments came while hearing a petition filed by lawyer Shailendra Mani Tripathi, who was seeking a national menstrual leave policy, legal website LiveLaw reported.

Tripathi later told news agency IANS that he had hoped working women would receive “two-to-three days of leave” to account for menstrual difficulties.

The judges, however, said introducing such a policy would not benefit women. Instead, they said it would reinforce gender stereotypes and affect employability.

They said this could make private-sector employers hesitant to hire women and might ultimately discourage their recruitment.

They added that “the government could come up with a menstrual leave policy in consultation with all stakeholders”, LiveLaw reported.

The comments from the top court have again put the issue in the spotlight in India, reviving debate over whether menstrual leave is a progressive step or whether it encourages stereotypes that women are weaker and unfit for the workplace.

Public health expert and lawyer Sukriti Chauhan told the BBC that by saying menstrual leave would make women “unattractive” as employees, the judges “reiterate the taboo around menstruation and rights that we have failed to address”.

She said there were laws in India covering “workplace dignity, gender equality, and safe working conditions” for women and that “denying menstrual leave violates these principles by forcing women into uncomfortable, undignified or hazardous work environments”.

“Providing menstrual leave not only supports women’s health and well-being, but also promotes productivity and efficiency in the workplace,” she added.

Some argue that giving women extra leave would be discriminatory to men and that, in a country where periods are often a taboo subject, with women barred from temples or isolated at home as “unclean”, menstruating women may be too shy to claim it.

But campaigners point out that countries such as Spain, Japan, South Korea and Indonesia already offer menstrual leave, and that studies have shown this time off can be beneficial to women.

Some Indian states also offer limited menstrual leave. Bihar and Odisha give two days per month to government employees, while Kerala provides it to university and industrial training institute staff.

Last year, the southern state of Karnataka introduced a law approving one day off a month for all menstruating women.

In the past few years, several companies have also introduced similar policies for female staff.

In 2025, industrial and services conglomerate RPG Group announced a two-days-a-month period leave policy for employees in its subsidiary CEAT.

Engineering giant L&T also introduced a similar policy, offering a one-day leave in a month, while food delivery company Zomato offers up to 10 days of period leave a year.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025 Aspect Health Media Ltd. All Rights Reserved.