Opinion
Acceptable data use vs exploitation when women receive ‘free’ digital health tools

By Wolfgang Hackl, CEO, OncoGenomX Inc., Allschwil, Switzerland
In women’s health, “free” digital tools occupy an especially sensitive space. Period trackers, fertility apps, pregnancy platforms, menopause programs, pelvic-floor wearables, contraception reminders, mental-health chatbots and symptom diaries have become essential resources for millions worldwide. For many, these tools fill longstanding gaps in clinical care, offering information, monitoring and community.
Yet women’s health data are uniquely intimate, politically vulnerable and commercially valuable. The same apps that help a woman identify a fertility window or track post-partum mood changes may also collect sexual history, location, device IDs, hormonal patterns, and behavioral clues that can be monetized or repurposed – sometimes without meaningful transparency.
The core ethical question is urgent: When does the data exchange that underpins “free” women’s health tools empower individuals, and when does it exploit them?
Across research and policy commentary, the fault lines remain the same – transparency, proportionality, control, fair value sharing, and protection from harm – but their stakes are heightened in women’s health.
The high-risk profile of women’s health data
The sensitivity of women’s health data is not abstract. It becomes dangerous in real-world contexts:
- Reproductive rights volatility – In jurisdictions with restrictive reproductive laws, menstrual cycle data, geolocation patterns around clinics, search histories and communication logs can be weaponized.
- Stigma and discrimination – Data related to miscarriage, abortion, infertility, menopause symptoms, mental health, sexual function or domestic violence can lead to insurance denial, unfair pricing, employment impacts or social vulnerability.
- Relationship and safety risk – Some apps collect or expose data that partners or third parties could misuse, from mood logs to location traces.
- Commercial targeting – Women are historically targeted with exploitative advertising around fertility supplements, weight loss, anti-aging and alternative therapies, often amplified by intimate behavioral data.
These risks transform the ethics of “free.” When a tool’s business model depends on collecting sensitive reproductive or behavioral attributes at scale, the user is no longer the beneficiary – the user is the product.
What women expect when sharing health data
Studies consistently show broad support among women for sharing data when it drives tangible health benefits—research, better care pathways, early diagnosis, or community insights. Trust collapses when data are:
- shared with advertisers, data brokers or insurers
- used for profiling, risk scoring or targeted pricing
- stored indefinitely or without clarity
- accessible to third parties unknown to the user
Women expect three things above all:
- Radical transparency
Not euphemisms, not hidden trackers, not 30-page terms. Women want to know who sees what, why and how it will be protected.
- Meaningful agency
Granular control – “yes” to sharing anonymized cycle data for research, “no” to targeted ads; “yes” to contributing to public-good datasets, “no” to third-party data inference.
- Safety guarantees
Technical and legal safeguards that explicitly prohibit uses exposing women to legal, financial, physical or psychological risk.
Women’s health is not a sandbox for broad, open-ended data collection. When platforms request permissions unrelated to their core health function – photos, contacts, continuous location, device fingerprinting – alarm bells ring.
Exploitation patterns in “free” women’s health tools
Technical audits of menstrual and fertility apps show that many collect extraordinarily detailed data: cycle length, symptoms, sexual activity, pregnancy intentions, test results, mood logs, sleep, stress, location, device IDs, email metadata, and “other information.” Some share with dozens of third parties.
The exploitation signals are increasingly well understood:
- Opaque data pipelines to marketers, analytics firms and profiling engines
- Unbounded storage of sensitive reproductive histories
- Engagement-driven design that nudges users toward disclosing more
- Commercial re-use of intimate behavioral patterns unrelated to health
- Minimal or performative governance despite high-risk categories
When a woman logs cramps or sexual activity, the ethical baseline is higher than in general wellness apps. The potential harms – legal, social, relational – are uniquely gendered and often irreversible.
Value capture and the “women pay twice” problem
Women’s health technologies have become a multi-billion-dollar market. But the value chain often flows upward, not back to the users:
- Women supply intimate, high-granularity data – Immense value for R&D, precision marketing, and investor storytelling.
- Companies monetize the insights – Through partnerships, advertising, risk scoring or AI model development.
- Women then purchase the resulting products – Including paid upgrades, supplements, or premium diagnostics whose innovation was subsidized by their data.
Without mechanisms that guarantee affordability, open reporting or reinvestment into women’s health services, the model becomes extractive. Women contribute the raw material, then buy back the finished product at retail price.
Pathways to acceptable – and truly empowering – data use
Responsible data practice in women’s health requires stricter standards than generic “digital health ethics.” The following markers – derived from current scholarship—are especially critical in women’s health contexts:
- Purpose-bound data practices
Tools should collect only what is strictly necessary for the health purpose. Fertility predictions do not require contact lists or persistent location tracking.
- Prohibitions on harmful secondary uses
Contracts and code must explicitly block:
- insurance scoring
- law enforcement access without due process
- targeted advertising linked to reproductive data
- cross-platform tracking
- sale to data brokers
- High-security architecture
Women’s health data should be treated like genomic or mental health data:
- encryption at rest and in transit
- zero-trust design
- independent security audits
- strict third-party access regimes
- Governance designed for vulnerable contexts
Oversight bodies should include women’s health experts, legal scholars, and patient advocates, reviewing not just privacy compliance but real-world harm potential.
- Fair value and reciprocity
If population-level reproductive or maternal health data fuel AI models, companies should commit to:
- affordability of products derived from those models
- investment in community health infrastructure
- transparency in data-driven improvements
This is not charity. It is ethical reciprocity.
The way forward: trust as a differentiator
Women’s health is evolving from niche to mainstream. With this visibility comes responsibility. Investors and innovators who treat data stewardship as a strategic asset – not a compliance hurdle—will define the next era of digital women’s health.
The future belongs to tools that:
- put safety ahead of scale
- align business models with women’s interests
- eliminate dark patterns
- prove that “free” does not mean “exploitative”
- create value with, not from, women
Ultimately, the line between acceptable data use and exploitation is shaped by one question:
Does this tool treat women as partners—or as data sources?
The companies that choose the former will earn the trust that defines the next generation of global women’s health innovation.
News
We built Ema like a nurse: Here’s why that matters

By Claire Pettengill, science intern and Jade Anstine, clinical AI intern, Ema EQ
Every year, Gallup asks Americans which professions they trust most. Every year, nurses win. Not doctors. Not scientists. Nurses. And if you spend any time thinking about why, the answer is not hard to find.
Medicine runs on the nurse noticing first. In other words, the diagnosis follows the nurse sounding the alarm. They ask questions that feel human, not procedural. They explain what is happening in language you can understand.
And, critically, they know when something is beyond their scope and get you to the right person without making you feel like a burden for needing more.
That is the model we built Ema on.
When we set out to build an AI companion for women’s health, we could have just built something that answers questions efficiently. Pattern matching. Fast retrieval. Clinically accurate outputs.
Those things matter, and Ema does all of them. But accuracy alone does not build trust, and trust is the entire game in healthcare.
A woman asking about her postpartum recovery, her fertility, or her breastfeeding supply is not looking for a search engine. She is looking for someone who will take her seriously.
Women’s concerns don’t just need to be ‘validated’; they also need to be believed. Dismiss a woman’s pain as anxiety once, and you’ve taught her to doubt her own body.
The nursing model of care is built on exactly that premise. It is care that is shaped by her story. It asks about context and symptoms.
It treats the person as a whole, and it recognises that the right answer is sometimes a referral, not a response.
We trained Ema to escalate. That may sound like a small thing, but in AI, it is a deliberate design choice.
Most AI systems are optimised to answer and maintain engagement. Ema is optimised to help, and sometimes helping means saying “you need to speak to a clinician” and making that path easy.
This matters especially in women’s health, where the clinical trust gap is well-documented.
In a 2022 nationally representative survey of over 5,000 women, nearly 1 in 3 reported that their doctor had dismissed their concerns, and 15 per cent said a provider simply didn’t believe them.
Women are more likely to have their symptoms dismissed, their concerns minimised, and their pain undertreated. Among women under 35, nearly half reported at least one of these experiences.
They have had to learn how to advocate within systems designed for efficiency, built on men’s health.
With Ema, every conversation is an opportunity to make a woman feel heard, informed, and directed to the right level of care, neither over-triaged nor undertreated.
The goal is not to replace clinicians. It is to create a trustworthy first point of support that listens carefully, explains clearly, recognises limits, and helps women move toward appropriate care.
The nurses who top those Gallup rankings every year earn that trust through consistency. They show up, listen, follow through, and know their limits.
Ema is simply that trust, built into technology. That is the standard we hold Ema to: a trustworthy presence that knows when to answer and when to hand off.
Medicine spent a long time teaching women not to expect to be believed. Ema is built by the people who never stopped listening.
Bios
Claire Pettengill is a psychiatric nurse and DNP-PMHNP candidate at Columbia University School of Nursing, specialising in women’s mental health across the lifespan and algorithmic justice – ensuring the AI tools shaping women’s care are built to actually listen. She joined Ema EQ as a science intern focusing on clinical safety standards for evaluating AI in women’s health.
Jade Anstine is a senior nursing student at Gustavus Adolphus College looking to bridge the gap between frontline medicine and digital health innovation. He joined Ema EQ as a Clinical AI Intern to assess the Ema AI model across different clinical populations, specifically pediatrics and LGBTQ+.
News
The technology exists: Why are women still waiting?

By Jane Lewis, chief operating officer, chief financial officer and women’s health lead, ABHI
For years, the conversation around women’s health has rightly focused on recognition.
Recognition that women wait longer for diagnosis. Recognition that symptoms are too often dismissed or normalised. Recognition that healthcare systems have historically been designed around male biology, leaving gaps in research, evidence and care.
That recognition matters. But awareness alone will not improve outcomes.
The challenge facing women’s health today is no longer simply identifying the problem. It is acting on the solutions already available.
At ABHI’s Women’s Health Summit earlier this year, leaders from across healthcare, government, academia and industry came together to discuss the future of women’s health.
One message emerged repeatedly throughout the day: we do not have an innovation problem.
Across medical devices, diagnostics, digital health and genomics, there are already technologies capable of transforming outcomes for women.
From self-sampling approaches for cervical screening and non-invasive diagnostics to AI-enabled tools and advanced imaging, innovation is happening. The question is whether healthcare systems can adopt it quickly enough.
Too often, promising technologies become trapped in pilot programmes, fragmented procurement processes or lengthy implementation pathways. Evidence generation, commissioning and adoption are frequently treated as separate challenges rather than part of a single journey.
The consequence is that innovations capable of improving quality of life and reducing pressure on health services take years to reach the women who could benefit from them.
This matters because women’s health extends far beyond reproductive health.
Historically, many discussions have centred on fertility, pregnancy and gynaecological conditions. These remain critically important, but they represent only part of the picture.
Women experience cardiovascular disease differently to men. They are disproportionately affected by autoimmune conditions. They face distinct health challenges throughout their lives, from adolescence to healthy ageing.

Jane Lewis
Yet healthcare systems often continue to approach these issues in isolation.
A woman does not experience her health in separate compartments. Pregnancy, cardiovascular risk, menopause, mental health and musculoskeletal conditions are interconnected.
Healthcare systems need to reflect that reality through more integrated, life-course approaches to care.
There has never been a better opportunity to do so.
Across the NHS, the shift towards prevention, community-based care and digital transformation aligns closely with the needs of women’s health.
Women’s Health Hubs are already demonstrating the benefits of bringing services together around the needs of women rather than organisational boundaries. Digital technologies are helping to identify risk earlier and support more personalised care.
Innovation can help deliver all three of the NHS’s major transformation ambitions: moving from treatment to prevention, from hospital to community, and from analogue to digital care.
But innovation alone is not enough.
Closing the women’s health gap also requires us to address longstanding gaps in research and evidence.
Women remain underrepresented in many areas of clinical research, and sex-disaggregated analysis is not always applied consistently. The result is that clinical pathways and treatment decisions are often based on evidence that does not fully reflect female physiology.
Better data, stronger research participation and greater focus on female-specific and female-predominant conditions will be essential.
There is also a compelling economic case for action.
Women’s health is often framed as an equality issue, and equality remains central. But poor health affects workforce participation, productivity and economic growth.
Improving outcomes for women benefits not only patients, but employers, healthcare systems and wider society.
Yet despite this, women’s health innovation continues to attract only a fraction of the investment directed towards other areas of healthcare.
That is beginning to change.
Across the UK and internationally, momentum is building. Governments, investors, researchers and innovators increasingly recognise that women’s health is both a societal necessity and an economic opportunity.
The conversation has moved on significantly in recent years. Topics that were once overlooked are now firmly on the policy agenda.
The next challenge is ensuring that awareness translates into action.
The technologies exist. The evidence is growing. The policy direction is increasingly clear.
ABHI is increasingly taking this agenda beyond national boundaries. Through our engagement with international industry associations, policymakers and healthcare leaders, we are working to ensure that women’s health is recognised as both a health and economic priority.
We are helping to shape discussions on innovation, regulation, investment and adoption, while sharing lessons from the UK with partners around the world.
Whether addressing the gender health gap, improving access to diagnostics or accelerating the uptake of new technologies, international collaboration will be essential.
The challenge now is not recognising the need for change, but delivering it.
Women have waited long enough for acknowledgement of the problem. They should not have to wait any longer for the benefits of the solutions that already exist.
ABHI is the UK’s leading industry association for HealthTech. Its members, ranging from multinationals to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), develop and supply technologies spanning everything from syringes and wound dressings to surgical robots, diagnostics, and digitally enabled healthcare solutions. ABHI’s 400 member companies represent approximately 80% of the UK HealthTech sector by value.
Opinion
Women’s Health has waited long enough for innovation

By Dr Fran Conti-Ramsden, clinician at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, academic at King’s College London, and chief medical officer of MEGI Health.
A woman gives birth. A few days later she goes home, often with a bag of medication for her blood pressure, and then, very often, very little structured follow-up for her heart (cardiovascular) health.
In my clinical work, and through our collaboration with Action on Pre-eclampsia, I see and hear about this postnatal cliff edge again and again, and it still shocks me.
We invest a lot of medical care and attention whilst a woman or birthing individual is pregnant, then, at the very moment emerging evidence suggests we have a window of opportunity to modify long-term health, the support falls away.
That cliff edge is a symptom of a deeper issue: we have come to treat “women’s health” as a synonym for reproductive health. Pregnancy, periods and fertility, important as they are, have crowded out everything else.
Yet the conditions that do most to shorten and limit women’s lives are not reproductive at all.
Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in women worldwide, and it is still too readily thought of as a man’s problem.
Heart disease in women is more likely to be missed and under-treated, in part because for decades women were under-represented in the research that built our knowledge.
Pregnancy makes this vivid.
Conditions such as pre-eclampsia are not only risks to be managed for nine months; they are early warnings about a woman’s future, markers that she is more likely to develop heart disease and high blood pressure in the years to come.
We have the knowledge to act on that. What we mostly do instead is discharge her and look away.
This is exactly the kind of problem better tools should help us solve: spotting risk earlier, supporting women and their clinicians through the vulnerable postnatal window, and providing continuity where the system currently provides a drop due to lack of capacity.
Artificial intelligence and digital health have real potential here; in risk prediction, in monitoring blood pressure at home, and in helping stretched clinicians know who needs attention and when.
And yet this is not where most of the energy is going.
It is far easier to build, fund and scale an app that tracks a cycle than a tool that changes the trajectory of a woman’s heart.
So, innovation clusters at the lighter, lower-risk end of innovation, while the conditions that actually kill and disable women, and moments like the postnatal cliff, stay under-served.
Closing the women’s health gap could add at least a trillion dollars to the global economy each year, the World Economic Forum estimates, but the bigger prize is women living longer, healthier lives.
None of this means technology is a cure in itself. It is a tool, and a tool built carelessly can do harm.
Because women have been under-represented in medical data, systems trained on that data can quietly carry the same blind spots forward, deepening inequalities rather than closing them.
Responsible innovation, with clinical-grade evidence, privacy and equity designed in from the start, and tools built around real clinical pathways rather than bolted on afterwards, is not a brake on progress.
It is the only version of progress worth having.
I am optimistic, because a serious community is forming around exactly these questions and the appetite to get it right is real.
It is why, at MEGI, we are bringing clinicians, researchers, founders, regulators and investors together for our AI × Women’s Health summit on 25 June.
If we keep our focus on the conditions that matter most to women’s lives, and build the tools to meet them responsibly, the postnatal cliff edge could become something else entirely: the moment the system finally catches her and delivers preventative healthcare.
AI × Women’s Health: Innovation, Challenges and Opportunities summit is taking place on Thursday 25 June 2026 at the London Institute for Healthcare Engineering. The event is free and is fully booked and operating a waiting list. Join the waiting list here.
About Dr Fran Conti-Ramsden
Dr Fran Conti-Ramsden is a UK Obstetrics and Gynaecology registrar and Chadburn Clinical Lecturer at KCL passionate about transforming women’s health through technology and innovation.
Combining NHS clinical experience with an MRC-funded PhD, recent NHS Clinical AI fellowship and commercial role as Chief Medical Officer at Megi health, she works at the intersection of clinical medicine, data science, technology and AI.
Her current programme of research focuses on the intersection of healthcare and technology; leveraging advances such as smartphone based vital signs capture and large language models to drive forward scalable innovation in maternal cardiovascular care.
She has published over 20 peer-reviewed manuscripts (See gScholar, h-index 12), including award-winning work recognized by Hypertension Journal.
She was awarded an AI visionary award in 2025 by Health Innovation KSS was the recipient of the 2024 International Society for the Study of Hypertension in Pregnancy Zuspan prize.
Cancer2 days agoThousands of women could avoid painful cancer exam with new AI blood test
Insight4 days agoWomen with PMOS should have annual NHS checks, new guidance says
Diagnosis3 days agoTwo “gamechanger” tests set to speed up endometriosis diagnosis on the NHS
Entrepreneur1 week agoKorea’s Femtech Industry Goes Global as Vespexx Hosts Korea Femtech Summit 2026
Fertility2 weeks agoImmunotherapy may temporarily restore fertility in premature menopause
AI1 week agoBreast cancer biosensor and low-cost ultrasound startups win women’s health AI competition
News2 weeks agoDon’t miss HTW’s upcoming deep dive into health AI
News1 week agoClue spotlights seven women’s health journeys in new campaign











