Bringing Evidence into Menstrual Health

For decades, menstrual health has been shaped by fragmented knowledge, delayed diagnoses, and structural blind spots in research and care. Many people affected by cycle-related symptoms grow accustomed to being dismissed, managing their health largely on their own. For Svenja Gallasch, this reality was not just a systemic observation but a personal turning point. Coming from a non-academic, working-class background, her route into science was anything but straightforward. What began as a practical career path gradually turned into a deep engagement with health sciences, driven by a simple but pressing question: why is reliable, evidence-based information on menstrual health so hard to access?

Today, Svenja is co-founder of femCycle, a start-up aiming to bridge the gap between medical evidence and everyday self-management. In this interview, she speaks about her journey, transitioning from research to entrepreneurship, and why rebuilding trust in one’s body begins with making science accessible.

As someone with a scientific background, how did you experience the transition into entrepreneurship?

Founding a company was as unfamiliar to me as academic research once was. In both cases, it requires constant learning, questioning assumptions, and developing new skills. The main difference is that research is largely theoretical and trains critical thinking, whereas entrepreneurship is practical and trains you to act. I find that combination extremely valuable.

You’ve described many of your career decisions as ‘gut decisions’. How do you balance intuition and scientific reasoning today?

I rely on evidence for product decisions and on intuition for leadership decisions. Scientific rigour is essential for the kind of product we are building. At the same time, long-term success depends on choosing the right team, making strategic judgements, and staying motivated. That is where intuition plays an important role for me.

For those unfamiliar with femCycle, what sets your app apart from existing cycle-tracking solutions?

At the moment, the market is largely divided into two categories. On one side, there are lifestyle apps that are not regulated and therefore carry a significant risk of misinformation. On the other hand, there are medical products such as digital health applications that are scientifically validated and regulated, but usually only accessible via prescription and often limited to specific conditions or life stages.

femCycle deliberately bridges these two worlds. Many people with cycle-related symptoms report difficult experiences with gynaecologists and feel dismissed or not taken seriously. At the same time, there is a lack of reliable, accessible information for non-scientists. By combining medical reliability with low-threshold access, femCycle allows users to take an initial step towards self-management while also generating structured data they can bring into medical consultations. In short, femCycle is evidence-led yet accessible, connecting self-care and clinical care.

You emphasise that femCycle is a medical product rather than a lifestyle app. What does that mean in practice?

Our standard is to recommend only interventions that are supported by strong scientific evidence. We assess interventions using clinical guidelines, systematic reviews, and their relevance in practice, and we communicate both the strengths and limitations of the evidence transparently. At the same time, we are very aware of the gender health gap. In many areas, the evidence base is still insufficient. In those cases, we communicate uncertainty clearly rather than overpromising. In addition, a conformity assessment procedure must be carried out in accordance with the Medical Device Regulation (MDR). Only by completing this procedure can we call our app a medical device.

How do you decide which symptoms and parameters are medically meaningful?

Every symptom deserves to be taken seriously, as severity and impact vary greatly between individuals. For the first version of the app, we used clinical guidelines for endometriosis, PCOS (Polycystic Ovary Syndrome), and PMDD (Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder) as a foundation and combined this with the symptoms users report most frequently. We also consulted gynaecologists to understand which symptoms are most relevant for diagnostic pathways and clinical decision-making. 

What impact do you ultimately hope femCycle will have on menstrual health?

I hope femCycle can provide clarity and confidence. Too many people have learned to distrust their bodies or downplay symptoms due to a lack of guidance. We want users to feel empowered to speak about their symptoms, advocate for themselves, and reconnect with their bodies using data-informed insights. From a scientific perspective, I also hope that the data we generate will contribute to research and help reduce diagnostic delays for gynaecological conditions.

femCycle was co-founded by women from science, IT, and marketing. How do you make decisions across disciplines?

Our interdisciplinary structure is a major advantage. We communicate openly about our respective fields, explain why certain topics matter, and translate between disciplines. That allows us to align on the best possible solutions rather than working in isolated silos.

What have you learned about leadership through working so closely with your co-founders?

Trust is essential. Each of us brings deep expertise, and the product would not exist without any one of us. For me, leadership means providing clarity, trusting others’ work, and confidently owning my own expertise.