Why FemTech startups struggle with healthcare partnerships - a doctor's perspective
How to engage clinicians to recommend your product
The FemTech industry has exploded into a multi-billion dollar market featuring different apps and platforms claiming to transform women’s health. Yet a core problem remains: many of these companies cannot get doctors to recommend them despite securing funding and attracting interested users. In this guest post for FutureFemHealth, Dr Ayomide Owodunni shares her insights on why the disconnect exists and what FemTech companies can do to bridge the gap.
The issue isn’t that physicians are resistant to innovation; it’s that these companies develop solutions without understanding what physicians need to confidently integrate them into patient care. This blocks healthcare partnerships and limits market reach.
The clinical validation divide
Doctors evaluate medical tools by asking specific questions:
What’s the evidence for efficacy?
What are the potential harms?
How does this compare to existing standards of care?
Is this appropriate for this specific patient?
These questions result from medical training that demands evidence and prioritises patient safety; hence, the need for clinical data to make informed recommendations.
What doctors actually need
Clinical evidence of outcomes: Physicians need data demonstrating that the intervention improves health outcomes, like cycle regularity, quality of life, and metabolic markers, not merely user engagement rates.
Clearly defined scope and restrictions: We need to know the specific functions and constraints of the product. Is it diagnostic? Educational? Therapeutic? Vague positioning would prevent confident clinical guidance.
Clinical workflow integration: Can I access relevant patient data when needed to make informed decisions about patient care?
Transparency about process and algorithm: If physicians don’t understand the reasoning behind predictions and suggestions by the app, they’ll be reluctant to use and recommend them.
For example, if a patient asked me to recommend a fertility app for conception with these two options, I would choose the second without hesitation. The first claims 95% ovulation prediction accuracy but cannot explain its validation process, despite having an excellent interface. The second has published a peer-reviewed validation study demonstrating 89% accuracy across diverse cycle types, including PCOS. The transparency and commitment to evidence-based credibility are what would determine my clinical recommendation.
Why the disconnect persists
The gap exists due to structural differences between medicine and entrepreneurship. Medical education doesn’t include training on evaluating digital health tools, while startups prioritise rapid adaptation and user recruitment over slower clinical validation.
These industries define “working” differently. Tech considers products successful if users engage and find them valuable, while medicine requires health outcome improvements with acceptable risk.
Healthcare system barriers compound the problem. Even when physicians are interested, institutional concerns about liability, data security, and reimbursement prevent formal partnerships.
The distinction between consumer success and clinical adoption is crucial. For example, period trackers have helped millions understand their cycles, but founders often miss that consumer satisfaction and clinical adoption require different strategies. An app for menstrual cramps with amazing reviews differs significantly from a clinically validated dysmenorrhoea treatment physicians can trust and recommend.
What femtech founders should do
To bridge this credibility gap, founders should:
Incorporate clinical advisors from the foundation. Include doctors who understand both the clinical issue your app is seeking to address and the medical standards required.
Invest in outcomes research and peer-reviewed publications. These are non-negotiable for healthcare adoption. Physician trust will be greatly increased by even the smallest indication that your product improves particular health markers.
Use precise language about clinical claims. Vague terms like “improves reproductive wellness” mean nothing clinically. Use precise statements like “Helps users track ovulation for fertility awareness.”
Design products for seamless integration into existing care pathways. Enable data sharing and generate clinical summaries for patient records.
Understand regulatory requirements. If your product makes diagnostic claims or influences treatment decisions, operating within proper frameworks builds credibility with medical professionals.
The bottom line
Most women’s health physicians want better tools. We see the gaps and are eager to partner with innovators addressing real clinical problems. The question isn’t whether physicians are open to recommending these tools; it’s whether companies are building for genuine clinical integration or treating healthcare partnerships as an afterthought.
When startups close this credibility gap through clinical validation and physician collaboration, doctors become powerful advocates, healthcare systems become willing partners, and most importantly, women gain access to solutions that are both innovative and clinically sound.
Dr Ayomide is a medical writer who helps FemTech brands create evidence-based content that builds trust with customers and credibility with investors. Visit Dr Ayomide’s website here.
This is an excellent summary for founders and marketers on lessons often learned the hard way. Listen to your clinical advisors! Investor pressure to move fast doesn’t always align with the physician audience’s need for evidence and outcomes. Thanks for highlighting this important distinction.