← All work Case 02 / 07 — NurtureSync
02 / 07
Case study 02 — Peer-reviewed research → product

NurtureSync

Thirty days of primary data on how emotion actually moves through the menstrual cycle — and an interface that changes shape depending on where you are in it.

Outcome Six findings from 22 check-ins over 30 days, a co-authored research paper now under peer review, and 9 built screens where every design rule traces back to a specific finding.
Research paper
“Emotionally Adaptive UI/UX for Menstrual Cycle Tracking”
Co-authored. Submitted to Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters — currently under peer review. The study below is the paper's primary data; this product is what the findings were designed into.
Status
Under review
My role
Researcher & co-author
Method
Longitudinal, mixed-methods
Method
Longitudinal mixed-methods, 30 days
Sample
10 recruited · 8 active · 22 check-ins
Role
Researcher, author, sole designer
Status
Research paper under review · app built
The premise

Menstrual tracking apps treat the cycle as a data-entry problem: dates in, forecasts out. But it is one of the few repeating human experiences that continuously alters mood, energy and self-perception — and almost no interface treats it as emotional.

I couldn't design for that from secondary research, because the clinical stereotype and lived experience disagree. So I ran the study first: four structured check-ins over 30 days, each timed to land a participant in a different cycle phase, rating emotional state, physical comfort, energy and mental focus 1–10, with open-ended questions after every rating.

Table I — composition of the active sample
CharacteristicCategoryn
Age band18–257
31–351
Cycle regularityRegular5
Irregular3
Check-ins done4 of 41
3 of 45
1–2 of 42
Screened, no check-inPCOS / PMDD2

Ratings are treated as descriptive signal, not inferential proof — the sample is too small for significance testing, and the paper says so plainly.

What the data said

Six findings, four of which contradict how these apps are built.

68%
Energy decline

Average drop as participants moved from the follicular peak into menstruation. Physical comfort fell 53% over the same transition. The trough is deep — but recovery was fast.

Bimodal
The luteal phase

Not consistently difficult, as the PMS stereotype assumes. Participants alternated between calm and storm — the highest variability in the dataset. One described emotions swinging "like a Ferris wheel."

5.6
Focus during "brain fog"

Mental focus never dropped below 5.6 across the whole cycle. Feeling foggy is not the same as being impaired — so the interface should acknowledge the fog, never assume incapacity.

83%
Retention drop

Participation collapsed before the final check-in. Rapid responders outlasted detailed ones — a behavioural finding that came from the study's own design flaw, and became the app's core constraint.

80%
Refused the libido question

A question I included to test the instrument's blind spots returned almost nothing. Privacy isn't a settings screen — it decides what you are allowed to ask at all.

Stress > phase
The strongest signal

Life stress consistently outweighed hormonal phase. Low ratings in the follicular "peak" traced to external stressors, not the cycle. So the product has to help separate the two, not conflate them.

Table II — mean self-rated wellbeing by phase (1–10)
Phase (days)Emot.Comf.EnergyFocus
Menstrual (1–5)4.84.02.65.6
Follicular (6–14)8.48.78.08.7
Ovulation (~14)5–85–9
Luteal (15+)6.26.26.06.6
Where the ovulation row is thin, I say so

Only three responses landed in the ovulation window, so it is reported as a range rather than a mean. One participant rated her emotional state 5/10 while describing herself as "strong and emotional today" — a single answer that exposed the limit of measuring emotion on one axis, and directly produced the app's most-repeated line of microcopy: "you may feel both strong and emotional today — that's not a contradiction."

More than half the group showed signs of low mood, and not one participant had discussed their cycle with a partner. Both findings became features rather than footnotes.

Finding → system

Four phase fingerprints became four interfaces.

The phase colour system is not decoration — it is the product. Colour, gradient, microcopy tone, CTA label, check-in length and card density all shift with the phase. The 83% retention drop set the hard rule: the menstrual phase asks exactly one question.

REST & RESTORE
Menstrual
#9B6FA0 · muted mauve
Ask: 1 question max
CTA: “I'm here”
Tone: validating, no asks
Density: low, more whitespace
RISE & BUILD
Follicular
#E07B54 · warm terracotta
Ask: up to 5 questions
CTA: “Let's go”
Tone: energising, action-ready
Density: medium-high
PEAK & CONNECT
Ovulation
#6666C6 · periwinkle
Ask: 2–3 questions
CTA: “Check in”
Tone: warm, connecting
Density: medium
REFLECT & RIDE
Luteal
#4A90A4 · teal-slate
Ask: 1–3, user chooses
CTA: “How are you?”
Tone: non-prescriptive
Density: low-medium
The built app — live, in menstrual phase

Four of nine screens. These are running, not pictures.

Tap a mood, select triggers, start a coping tool, flip Safe Mode. Every screen is currently rendering the mauve menstrual palette because the mock user is on day 3 of 5.

S3 — Home
One question, one insight

Phase banner, a single mood ask, and the day-3 insight: “that's real — not weakness.”

S4 — Log · Fig. 2A + 2B
Cause-tagging, not symptoms

Trigger chips exist so a user can attribute a low day to work stress rather than her cycle — the stress-over-phase finding, made operable.

S5 — Cope · Fig. 2C
Support what it can't treat

Tools filtered by phase. In menstruation, rest and breathing surface first; movement sinks.

S8 — Privacy · Fig. 2D
Safe Mode, on by default

The app can present itself as “Wellness”. Built because 80% refused one question — disclosure is never assumed.

Traceability

Every design rule points back to a finding.

FindingRule it produced
Retention collapsed 83%; short responders stayedOne question maintains a streak. Missing a day says “welcome back”, never “failed to log”.
Luteal is bimodal, not uniformly badInsights never predict. “Some luteal days are calm. Some aren't. Both are valid.” No countdown to a bad mood.
Brain fog with focus preserved at 5.6Acknowledge the feeling; never disable, downgrade or hide functionality because of the phase.
Life stress outweighed hormonal phaseCause-tagging chips and a stress-vs-cycle separator on Insights, so a bad Tuesday can be a bad Tuesday.
80% refused a sensitive questionNothing is mandatory. On-device by default. Safe Mode disguises the app. Partner sharing is the user's own words, never raw data.
Over half showed signs of low moodA support pathway in calm purple — never red, never called a crisis, always dismissible. Two Indian helplines, no gatekeeping.
No participant discussed their cycle with a partnerPartner sharing exists, off by default, and shares a sentence the user writes herself.
research paper · under review 9 screens built
Limits I'd state in any interview

Eight active participants clustered in one age band is a signal, not a finding — the research paper treats the ratings as descriptive and refuses inferential claims. Ovulation has three data points and is reported as a range. Two participants with PCOS and PMDD were screened but never checked in, so the most clinically affected voices are missing entirely.

What I'd do next

Run a second wave with automated check-in reminders — the retention collapse was caused by my own instrument, and fixing it would tell me whether the pattern holds or was an artefact. Then usability-test the phase-adaptive shift itself: does a user actually notice the interface changing with her, and does it read as care or as surveillance?

Next case study — 03 of 07
Learning Vision

Three roles on one LMS shell, without building three products.

Read it →
← Previous: SalesVision
All work About Email me