Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 79 references

"I Don't Want My Mental Health App To Give Me Mental Health Barriers": Unpacking The Need For Digital Mental Health Tracking Services With And For The Blind Community

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that blind users of digital mental health tracking apps are often blocked by paywalls that hide accessibility and by community features built for sighted users, not by missing digital skills.

desk verdict Solid mixed-methods core with a genuinely useful conceptual distinction, but the paper overstates the evidence for its flagship 'paywall-gated accessibility evaluation' claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11391 v1 pith:SPB24NPS submitted 2026-08-11 cs.HC

Omar Khan , JooYoung Seo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords accessibilitydigitalmentalhealthblindandlowvisionscreenreaderseliteracymixed-methodsstudypaywall-gatedevaluationdataagency
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Digital mental health (DMH) tracking apps promise support for well-being, but this paper argues that for blind users the deciding obstacle is structural rather than personal. Based on a survey of 93 legally blind US adults and 10 follow-up interviews, it finds that many blind users have strong eHealth literacy—they are skilled screen-reader users who know what they want—yet cannot apply those skills because apps hide accessibility information behind paywalls, rely on visual-only charts, and make community features unusable. The paper names the central pattern "paywall-gated accessibility evaluation" and extends a standard eHealth literacy framework by separating literacy gaps (user lacks a skill) from access barriers (design blocks an existing skill). If the paper is right, making mental health apps work for blind users means changing disclosure, marketplace, and community-feature design, not retraining users.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the distinction between a literacy gap and an access barrier, applied inside the eHealth Literacy framework's six-literacy decomposition. A literacy gap means the user lacks a competency the task requires; an access barrier means the user possesses the competency but the service's design prevents it from being exercised. This distinction does the paper's explanatory work: it turns the observation that skilled screen-reader users still fail at DMH apps into evidence that the failure belongs to the design, and it redirects intervention from user education to service change. The second named mechanism is paywall-gated accessibility evaluation, defined as a marketplace pattern in which accessibility-relevant information is withheld until after payment, so blind users cannot form the perceived usefulness that adoption models treat as the starting point of acceptance.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be to audit a random sample of DMH tracking apps by attempting, without paying, to obtain a structured accessibility statement and complete a core task with a screen reader, and then to check whether community features stay usable after purchase; a marketplace where most apps already disclose accessibility pre-purchase and keep community features accessible would undercut the paper's central barrier claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the failures blind users experience with DMH tracking services are overwhelmingly access barriers, not literacy gaps. Participants who could operate assistive technology, evaluate health information, and articulate their mental health goals were nevertheless stopped by interfaces designed for sighted users: unlabeled buttons, startup screens that could not be passed, progress data rendered only as charts, and community features that excluded them from the peer support that is part of the intervention. The paper documents a structural marketplace pattern it calls paywall-gated accessibility evaluation: blind users must pay before they can determine whether a service is usable, turning accessibility discovery into a financial risk. It extends the eHealth Literacy framework, whose six-literacy decomposition treats competencies as properties of individuals, by distinguishing a literacy gap from an access barrier; the latter is a design failure that no amount of user skill can overcome. The evidence is that usage concentrates in audio-first categories like mindfulness and sleep, where accessibility retrofits least damage the intervention, while adoption is gated by pre-purchase invisibility and community connection is unavailable.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that 93 self-selected blind adults recruited through advocacy networks, and the 10 interviewed among them, represent the US blind community closely enough to support claims about marketplace-wide structural barriers; if the sample skews toward unusually literate and advocacy-connected users, the observed split between literacy and access could be overstated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paywall-gated accessibility evaluation pattern holds, DMH services should publish structured accessibility statements before purchase and offer time-limited trials that include the features blind users most need to evaluate.
  • If community exclusion is as central as the paper argues, peer-support and community features should be treated as intervention accessibility, with the same standards as the core mental health content.
  • If adoption theory incorporates evaluability, then perceived usefulness should be preceded by a pre-purchase check that accessibility information is available to the user.
  • If regulators or app stores require accessibility disclosure as a listing condition, the cost of evaluating accessibility would shift from individual blind users to service providers.
  • If the personalization findings are implemented, users should be able to configure the balance of push-based and pull-based interactions and set screen-reader-friendly shortcuts to frequent content.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • My inference: because the mechanism is pre-purchase invisibility, paywall-gated accessibility evaluation likely also operates in other subscription digital health and wellness categories, not just DMH apps.
  • My inference: the literacy-gap versus access-barrier distinction can be used as a diagnostic in any eHealth intervention; an audit of existing digital health literacy programs that separates the two would reveal how many target user education where the actual failure is structural.
  • My inference: if usage concentrates in audio-first categories because those survive screen-reader use, then releasing an accessible mood-tracking or therapy-chat service should visibly shift blind users' category choices; that is a testable prediction.
  • My inference: a matched comparison of adoption rates for apps with and without pre-purchase accessibility trials would test the causal claim experimentally.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper reports an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study of 93 legally blind US adults who completed a survey about digital mental health (DMH) tracking services, followed by semi-structured interviews with 10 respondents. It documents usage concentrated in audio-first categories (mindfulness, sleep, and goal tracking), recurring accessibility barriers, privacy and data-agency preferences, and exclusion from community-based peer-support features. The authors interpret the findings through Norman and Skinner's eHealth Literacy framework and argue that its 'computer literacy' dimension is insufficient because many blind users possess the relevant literacies but are blocked by structural design and marketplace barriers. The paper contributes empirical findings, the concept of 'paywall-gated accessibility evaluation,' and design/policy recommendations for surfaceability of accessibility information before purchase, accessible community features, and user-controlled data agency.

Significance. If the central structural claims hold, this paper is a valuable addition to accessibility and digital mental health research. Its strengths include a transparent methods section, full survey instrument in the appendix, explicit positionality of blind researchers, and an accessible survey design that is itself a methodological contribution. The proposed distinction between literacy gaps and access barriers is a useful and well-motivated conceptual extension of the eHealth Literacy framework, consistent with the social model of disability. The empirical findings on usage patterns and community exclusion address a genuinely understudied population. However, the paper's headline contribution—paywall-gated accessibility evaluation as a 'structural feature of the DMH marketplace'—rests on limited participant inference rather than direct marketplace evidence, and the sample is narrow in ways that affect the scope of the generalizations. The core idea is promising and the evidence base is partially sufficient, but the manuscript overreaches in its framing and would require revision to support its strongest claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections 4.3.2, 4.4.3, and 5.2] The concept of 'paywall-gated accessibility evaluation' is presented as a structural feature of the DMH marketplace and is used to derive the paper's first and fourth design/policy recommendations (Section 5.4). Yet the supporting evidence consists almost entirely of two participant quotes (P75 in Section 4.3.2 and N3 in Section 4.4.3). No closed-ended survey item in Appendix B asks whether or how participants evaluated accessibility before payment, and no audit of DMH services' pre-purchase accessibility disclosure was conducted. The quotes show that participants want to evaluate accessibility before paying, but they do not establish that accessibility-relevant information is actually placed behind paywalls or that free trials and accessibility statements are systematically absent. To sustain a structural claim, the paper needs either direct marketplace evidence (e.g., an audit of disclosure practices across a sample of DMH services) or a reframing of the finding as an emergent qualitative hypothesis that motivates future work instead of a documented marketplace feature.
  2. [Sections 3.2 and 4.1] The sample is self-selected through four blind advocacy organizations (NFB, ACB, AFB, DO-IT) and therefore likely over-represents advocacy-connected and digitally literate blind adults. This is in fact an ideal population for demonstrating the paper's conceptual point—high literacy combined with persistent access barriers—but it limits the paper's broader generalizations to 'the blind community' that appear in the Abstract, the contribution list, and the Conclusion. The Limitations section (Section 6) acknowledges the lack of generalizability, yet the manuscript continues to use unqualified community-level language throughout the framing and recommendations. The authors should either scope all claims to the studied population (e.g., 'advocacy-connected blind adults in the United States') or provide additional evidence that the sample is representative enough for the stated generalizations.
  3. [Sections 3.6 and 4.1] The qualitative analysis was performed by the first author independently, with weekly discussion with the second author, and thematic saturation at 10 interviews is asserted without reporting code-saturation metrics, an audit trail, or independent coding by a second coder. Because the paper's central conceptual argument—the distinction between literacy gaps and access barriers—relies heavily on the interview and open-ended analysis, the absence of such evidence weakens the reproducibility of the qualitative claims. I recommend adding an inter-rater reliability check, a more detailed description of the coding process and theme formation, or an explicit acknowledgment that the themes are interpretive and would benefit from further confirmatory work.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1] The text refers to 'Table 3 in Appendix 4.1,' but Table 3 appears in Appendix A.2 (Interview Demographics); the cross-reference should be corrected.
  2. [Contribution list, Section 1] The phrase 'at a large-scale' overstates the breadth of a 93-respondent convenience sample; consider replacing it with a more modest descriptor such as 'at a moderate scale' or 'across multiple recruitment channels.'
  3. [Section 4.4.3] The phrase 'the many shapes and forms of barriers to entry' is vague; consider removing it or replacing it with a concrete summary of the barrier types identified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's claims are empirical and its framework extension is a post-hoc interpretive proposal, not a derivation from its inputs.

full rationale

This paper contains no formal derivation chain, fitted parameters, uniqueness theorems, or equations; its findings are produced from a survey and semi-structured interviews. The central concept, paywall-gated accessibility evaluation, is an interpretive label applied to participant statements (e.g., N3 and P75) rather than a quantity derived from those statements by construction. The eHealth Literacy framework [52, 53] is used as an analytical lens after data collection, and the paper's contribution—distinguishing literacy gaps from access barriers—is an explicit extension of that framework motivated by the data, not a conclusion entailed by the framework itself. The only self-citation, Khan and Seo [35], is disclosed as the source of the preliminary survey data, and the paper adds a new interview phase; the self-citation does not carry the load of the conceptual or empirical claims, which are independently grounded in the reported participant data. Evidentiary weaknesses flagged by the skeptic—small self-selected sample, thematic saturation asserted without inter-coder metrics, and the absence of an app audit supporting the marketplace-level paywall claim—are validity and generalizability limitations, not circularity. No step reduces to its own input by definition, and no prediction is statistically forced from a fitted parameter.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities; this is a qualitative empirical study with no mathematical derivation. The central claims rest on domain assumptions about sample representativeness, qualitative saturation, and the applicability of the eHealth Literacy framework, all listed above.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The eHealth Literacy framework's six-literacy decomposition is a valid analytical lens for this population.
    Adopted in Section 2.1.2; the paper interprets all findings through this framework and extends it, so the framework's validity is assumed rather than tested.
  • domain assumption Ten interviews reached thematic saturation and are sufficient to support the structural claims.
    Asserted in Section 4.1; no saturation metrics or second-coder agreement are provided, so the sufficiency of the qualitative sample is an unverified premise.
  • domain assumption Recruitment via blind advocacy organizations yields a sample whose experiences generalize to the US blind community.
    Section 3.2; self-selection via mailing lists may skew toward more digitally literate and advocacy-engaged participants, yet the paper treats the sample as representative for claims about the DMH marketplace.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of "I Don't Want My Mental Health App To Give Me Mental Health Barriers": Unpacking The Need For Digital Mental Health Tracking Services With And For The Blind Community." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SPB24NPS

@misc{pith2026260811391,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: "I Don't Want My Mental Health App To Give Me Mental Health Barriers": Unpacking The Need For Digital Mental Health Tracking Services With And For The Blind Community},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SPB24NPS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11391}
}
read the original abstract

Digital mental health (DMH) tracking services promise continuous, personalized support for well-being, but their design often assumes sighted users. For the blind community, this assumption produces a distinct pattern of exclusion: services whose accessibility cannot be evaluated without first paying for them, community features that exclude the users they purport to support, and interfaces that leave users digitally literate but functionally blocked. We report on an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study of blind users' experiences with DMH tracking services in the United States. In the first phase, 93 legally blind adults completed a survey about their usage patterns, adoption decisions, and data-agency preferences; in the second, 10 survey respondents participated in semi-structured interviews. We analyzed closed-ended responses using descriptive statistics and the Kruskal-Wallis test, and open-ended and interview data using inductive thematic analysis, interpreting findings through Norman and Skinner's eHealth Literacy framework. Participants identified mindfulness, sleep, and goal-tracking services as their most-used categories, but also described recurring exclusion from the community-support features that other users value most. We argue that the framework's "computer literacy" dimension is insufficient on its own: many of our participants possessed the literacy but were blocked from applying it by design choices that predate the user. We contribute design recommendations for transparent pre-purchase accessibility evaluation, accessibility-native rather than retrofitted interfaces, and user-controlled data agency -- recommendations intended not to accommodate blind users but to design DMH tracking services with them from the start.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11391 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Norman and Skinner’s eHealth Literacy framework [52, 53]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Flow diagram displaying the survey’s flow. Participants received varying questions depending on their [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Heatmap illustrating the relationship between DMH tracking service usage frequency and reasons for use [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Participant ratings for DMH tracking services helpfulness and accessibility. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Participants’ specific usability challenges [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Danielle R. Adams. 2024. Availability and Accessibility of Mental Health Services for Youth: A Descriptive Survey of Safety-Net Health Centers During the COVID- 19 Pandemic.Community Mental Health Journal60, 1 (Jan. 2024), 88–97. doi:10. 1007/s10597-023-01127-9

    work page 2024

  2. [3]

    2024.ATLAS.ti (Version 24)

    ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH. 2024.ATLAS.ti (Version 24). Lumivero, Berlin, Germany. https://atlasti.com

    work page 2024

  3. [4]

    C. C. Attkisson and R. Zwick. 1982. The client satisfaction questionnaire. Psycho- metric properties and correlations with service utilization and psychotherapy outcome.Evaluation and Program Planning5, 3 (1982), 233–237. doi:10.1016/0149- 7189(82)90074-x

    doi:10.1016/0149- 1982

  4. [5]

    Michelle C. Ausman. 2019. Artificial Intelligence’s Impact on Mental Health Treatments. InProceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 533–534. doi:10.1145/3306618.3314311

    arXiv 2019

  5. [6]

    Amid Ayobi, Rachel Eardley, Ewan Soubutts, Rachael Gooberman-Hill, Ian Crad- dock, and Aisling Ann O’Kane. 2022. Digital Mental Health and Social Con- nectedness: Experiences of Women from Refugee Backgrounds.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.6, CSCW2 (Nov. 2022), 507:1–507:27. doi:10.1145/3555620

    work page doi:10.1145/3555620 2022

  6. [7]

    Naslund, Mark Billinghurst, Imran Khaliq, and Hai-Ning Liang

    Nilufar Baghaei, Lehan Stemmet, Andrej Hlasnik, Konstantin Emanov, Sylvia Hach, John A. Naslund, Mark Billinghurst, Imran Khaliq, and Hai-Ning Liang

    work page

  7. [8]

    Luke Balcombe and Diego De Leo. 2023. Evaluation of the Use of Digital Mental Health Platforms and Interventions: Scoping Review.International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health20, 1 (Jan. 2023), 362. Number: 1. doi:10.3390/ijerph20010362

    work page doi:10.3390/ijerph20010362 2023

  8. [9]

    Marguerite Barry, Kevin Doherty, Jose Marcano Belisario, Josip Car, Cecily Mor- rison, and Gavin Doherty. 2017. mHealth for Maternal Mental Health: Everyday Wisdom in Ethical Design. InProceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2708–2756. doi:10.1145/30254...

    arXiv 2017

Show all 79 references
  1. [10]

    Dionne Bowie-DaBreo, Corina Sas, Heather Iles-Smith, and Sandra Sünram-Lea

  2. [11]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psy- chology.Qualitative Research in Psychology3, 2 (Jan. 2006), 77–101. _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

    2006 doi

  3. [12]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2012. Thematic analysis. InAPA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol 2: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological., Harris Cooper, Paul M. Camic, Debra L. Long, A. T. Panter, David Rindskopf, a...

    2012 doi

  4. [13]

    Ringland, and Stephen M

    John Bunyi, Kathryn E. Ringland, and Stephen M. Schueller. 2021. Accessibility and Digital Mental Health: Considerations for More Accessible and Equitable Mental Health Apps.Frontiers in Digital Health3 (Sept. 2021), 742196. doi:10. 3389/fdgth.2021.742196

    2021

  5. [14]

    Soledad Loyola, Irene Magaña, and Rodrigo Rojas

    Johana Cabrera, M. Soledad Loyola, Irene Magaña, and Rodrigo Rojas. 2023. Ethical Dilemmas, Mental Health, Artificial Intelligence, and LLM-Based Chatbots. InBioinformatics and Biomedical Engineering, Ignacio Rojas, Olga Valenzuela, Fernando Rojas Ruiz, Luis Javier Herrera, an...

    2023 doi

  6. [15]

    Calvo, Karthik Dinakar, Rosalind Picard, and Pattie Maes

    Rafael A. Calvo, Karthik Dinakar, Rosalind Picard, and Pattie Maes. 2016. Comput- ing in Mental Health. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3438–...

    2016

  7. [16]

    Calvo and Dorian Peters

    Rafael A. Calvo and Dorian Peters. 2017. Positive Computing: Research & Practice in Wellbeing Technology. InProceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 122...

    2017 doi

  8. [17]

    Calvo and Dorian Peters

    Rafael A. Calvo and Dorian Peters. 2019. Design for Wellbeing - Tools for Research, Practice and Ethics. InExtended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–5. doi:10.1145...

    2019

  9. [18]

    Adriane Chapman, Chloe L Harrison, Caroline Jones, James Thornton, Rose Wor- ley, and Jeremy C. Wyatt. 2024. Sociotechnical Considerations for Accessibility and Equity in AI for Healthcare. InCompanion Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024 (WWW ’24). Association for Co...

    2024

  10. [19]

    Babar Chaudary, Sami Pohjolainen, Saima Aziz, Leena Arhippainen, and Petri Pulli. 2021. Teleguidance-based remote navigation assistance for visually im- paired and blind people—usability and user experience.Virtual Reality27, 1 (May 2021), 141–158. doi:10.1007/s10055-021-00536-z

    2021 doi

  11. [20]

    Huang, and John Torous

    Kelly Chen, Jack J. Huang, and John Torous. 2024. Hybrid care in mental health: a framework for understanding care, research, and future opportunities. NPP—Digital Psychiatry and Neuroscience2, 1 (Oct. 2024), 1–4. doi:10.1038/s44277- 024-00016-7

    2024 doi

  12. [21]

    Soyoung Choi and Christian Joseph Chlebek. 2024. Exploring mHealth design opportunities for blind and visually impaired older users.mHealth10 (2024), 17. doi:10.21037/mhealth-23-65

    2024 doi

  13. [22]

    David Coyle, Conor Linehan, Karen Tang, and Sian Lindley. 2012. Interaction design and emotional wellbeing. InCHI ’12 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2775–2778. doi:10.1145/2212776.2212718

    2012

  14. [23]

    Creswell and Vicki L

    John W. Creswell and Vicki L. Plano Clark. 2017.Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Google-Books-ID: BXEzDwAAQBAJ

    2017

  15. [24]

    Cross and Mario Alvarez-Jimenez

    Shane P. Cross and Mario Alvarez-Jimenez. 2024. The digital cumulative complex- ity model: a framework for improving engagement in digital mental health inter- ventions.Frontiers in Psychiatry15 (Sept. 2024). doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1382726

    2024

  16. [25]

    Claudia Daudén Roquet and Corina Sas. 2018. Evaluating Mindfulness Meditation Apps. InExtended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–6. doi:10.1145/3170427.3188616

    2018

  17. [26]

    Fred D. Davis. 1989. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Ac- ceptance of Information Technology.Management Information Systems Quarterly 13, 3 (Sept. 1989), 319–340. doi:10.2307/249008

    1989 doi

  18. [27]

    Feinberg, Udaya Lakshmi, Matthew J

    Rachel R. Feinberg, Udaya Lakshmi, Matthew J. Golino, and Rosa I. Arriaga. 2022. ZenVR: Design Evaluation of a Virtual Reality Learning System for Meditation. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Ma...

    2022

  19. [28]

    Isabella Fornacon-Wood, Hitesh Mistry, Corinne Johnson-Hart, Corinne Faivre- Finn, James P. B. O’Connor, and Gareth J. Price. 2022. Understanding the Differences Between Bayesian and Frequentist Statistics.International Jour- nal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics112, 5 (...

    2022 doi

  20. [29]

    Ziyin Gu and Qingmeng Zhu. 2024. MentalBlend: Enhancing Online Mental Health Support through the Integration of LLMs with Psychological Counseling Theories.Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society46, 0 (2024). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7dk883nx

    2024

  21. [30]

    Muhammad Hassan and Masooda Bashir. 2023. Unveiling Privacy Measures in Mental Health Applications. InAdjunct Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Inter- national Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing & the 2023 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computing (UbiCom...

    2023

  22. [31]

    Michael Jeffrey Daniel Hoefer, Bryce E Schumacher, Danielle Albers Szafir, and Stephen Voida. 2022. Visualizing Uncertainty in Multi-Source Mental Health Data. InExtended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’22). Association for C...

    2022

  23. [33]

    Kelly, Yueyang Cheng, Dana McKay, Greg Wadley, and George Buchanan

    Ryan M. Kelly, Yueyang Cheng, Dana McKay, Greg Wadley, and George Buchanan

  24. [34]

    R Kevin Chapman. 2019. Mental Health in the IT Workplace. InProceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGUCCS Annual Conference (SIGUCCS ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 209. doi:10.1145/3347709.3347828

    2019

  25. [35]

    Sighted People Have Their Pick Of The Litter

    Omar Khan and JooYoung Seo. 2025. "Sighted People Have Their Pick Of The Litter": Unpacking The Need For Digital Mental Health (DMH) Tracking Services With And For The Blind Community. InProceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing ...

    2025

  26. [36]

    That’s Kind of Sus(picious)

    Yi Xuan Khoo, Rachael M. Kang, Tera L. Reynolds, and Helena M. Mentis. 2024. “That’s Kind of Sus(picious)”: The Comprehensiveness of Mental Health Applica- tion Users’ Privacy and Security Concerns. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI...

    2024

  27. [37]

    Yasuko Kohda, Takafumi Monma, Maki Yamane, Toshihito Mitsui, Kayoko Ando, Subrina Jesmin, and Fumi Takeda. 2019. Mental Health Status and Related Factors Among Visually Impaired Athletes.Journal of Clinical Medicine Research11, 11 (Nov. 2019), 729–739. doi:10.14740/jocmr3984

    2019 doi

  28. [39]

    Kruskal and W

    William H. Kruskal and W. Allen Wallis. 1952. Use of Ranks in One-Criterion Variance Analysis.J. Amer. Statist. Assoc.47, 260 (Dec. 1952), 583–621. _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1952.10483441. doi:10.1080/01621459. 1952.10483441

    1952

  29. [40]

    Lattie, Colleen Stiles-Shields, and Andrea K

    Emily G. Lattie, Colleen Stiles-Shields, and Andrea K. Graham. 2022. An overview of and recommendations for more accessible digital mental health services.Nature Reviews Psychology1, 2 (Feb. 2022), 87–100. doi:10.1038/s44159-021-00003-1

    2022 doi

  30. [41]

    Lee, Bongshin Lee, Soyoung Choi, JooYoung Seo, and Eun Kyoung Choe

    Jarrett G.W. Lee, Bongshin Lee, Soyoung Choi, JooYoung Seo, and Eun Kyoung Choe. 2024. Identify, Adapt, Persist: The Journey of Blind Individuals with Personal Health Technologies.Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.8, 2 (May 2024), 51:1–51:21. doi:10.1145/3659585

    2024 doi

  31. [42]

    Jarrett G. W. Lee, Kyungyeon Lee, Bongshin Lee, Soyoung Choi, JooYoung Seo, and Eun Kyoung Choe. 2023. Personal Health Data Tracking by Blind and Low- Vision People: Survey Study.Journal of Medical Internet Research25 (May 2023), e43917. doi:10.2196/43917

    2023 doi

  32. [43]

    Anqi Li, Yu Lu, Nirui Song, Shuai Zhang, Lizhi Ma, and Zhenzhong Lan. 2024. Au- tomatic Evaluation for Mental Health Counseling using LLMs. arXiv:2402.11958 [cs]. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2402.11958

    2024 doi arXiv

  33. [44]

    Jacqueline Louise Mair, Jumana Hashim, Linh Thai, E Shyong Tai, Jillian C Ryan, Tobias Kowatsch, Falk Müller-Riemenschneider, and Sarah Martine Edney. 2025. Understanding and overcoming barriers to digital health adoption: a patient and public involvement study.Translational B...

    2025 doi

  34. [45]

    Hayes, and Devva Kasnitz

    Jennifer Mankoff, Gillian R. Hayes, and Devva Kasnitz. 2010. Disability Studies as a Source of Critical Inquiry for the Field of Assistive Technology. InProceedings of the 12th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’10). Association for ...

    2010

  35. [46]

    Markum and Kentaro Toyama

    Robert B. Markum and Kentaro Toyama. 2020. Digital Technology, Meditative and Contemplative Practices, and Transcendent Experiences. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA...

    2020

  36. [47]

    McDonnall, Adele Crudden, B

    Michele C. McDonnall, Adele Crudden, B. J. LeJeune, and Anne Carter Steverson

  37. [48]

    Gunther Meinlschmidt, Stefanie Herta, Stefan Germann, Cliona Chee Pui Khei, Sebastian Klöss, and Moritz Borrmann. 2023. Mental Health and the Meta- verse: Ample Opportunities or Alarming Threats for Mental Health in Immersive Worlds?. InExtended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Confe...

    2023

  38. [49]

    Kamilla Miller and Gerald J. Jerome. 2022. Self-Monitoring Physical Activity, Diet, and Weight Among Adults Who Are Legally Blind: Exploratory Investi- gation.JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies9, 4 (Dec. 2022), e42923. Company: JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Tec...

    2022 doi

  39. [50]

    Njoku, Marian A

    Kamel Mouloudj, Ahmed Chemseddine Bouarar, Dachel Martínez Asanza, Linda Saadaoui, Smail Mouloudj, Anuli U. Njoku, Marian A. Evans, and Achouak Bouarar. 2023. Factors Influencing the Adoption of Digital Health Apps: An Extended Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). InIntegrating ...

    2023 doi

  40. [51]

    Subigya Nepal, Weichen Wang, Bishal Sharma, and Prabesh Paudel. 2021. Current practices in mental health sensing.XRDS28, 1 (Sept. 2021), 28–33. doi:10.1145/ 3481829

    2021

  41. [52]

    Ole Norgaard, Dorthe Furstrand, Louise Klokker, Astrid Karnoe Knudsen, Roy Bat- terham, Lars Kayser, and Richard Osborne. 2015. The e-health literacy framework: A conceptual framework for characterizing e-health users and their interaction with e-health systems.Knowledge Manag...

    2015

  42. [53]

    Norman and Harvey A

    Cameron D. Norman and Harvey A. Skinner. 2006. eHealth Literacy: Essential Skills for Consumer Health in a Networked World.Journal of Medical Internet Research8, 2 (June 2006), e506. doi:10.2196/jmir.8.2.e9

    2006 doi

  43. [54]

    Don Nutbeam. 2000. Health literacy as a public health goal: a challenge for contemporary health education and communication strategies into the 21st century.Health Promotion International15, 3 (Sept. 2000), 259–267. doi:10.1093/ heapro/15.3.259

    2000

  44. [55]

    Bruna Oewel, Patricia Anne Arean, and Elena Agapie. 2024. Approaches for tailoring between-session mental health therapy activities. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–1...

    2024

  45. [56]

    Oguamanam, Natalie Hernandez, Rasheeta Chandler, Dominique Guillaume, Kai Mckeever, Morgan Allen, Sabreen Mohammed, and Andrea G Parker

    Vanessa O. Oguamanam, Natalie Hernandez, Rasheeta Chandler, Dominique Guillaume, Kai Mckeever, Morgan Allen, Sabreen Mohammed, and Andrea G Parker. 2023. An Intersectional Look at Use of and Satisfaction with Digital Mental Health Platforms: A Survey of Perinatal Black Women. ...

    2023

  46. [57]

    Schueller, Jacob O

    Kathleen O’Leary, Stephen M. Schueller, Jacob O. Wobbrock, and Wanda Pratt

  47. [58]

    Kavita Pandey and Dhiraj Pandey. 2023. Mental Health Evaluation and Assistance for Visually Impaired People.EAI Endorsed Transactions on Scalable Information Systems10, 4 (April 2023), e6–e6. Number: 4. doi:10.4108/eetsis.vi.2931

    2023 doi

  48. [59]

    GRAHAM, and MARNIE H

    BAMBANG PARMANTO, ALLEN NELSON LEWIS, KRISTIN M. GRAHAM, and MARNIE H. BERTOLET. 2016. Development of the Telehealth Usability Ques- tionnaire (TUQ).International Journal of Telerehabilitation8, 1 (July 2016), 3–10. doi:10.5195/ijt.2016.6196

    2016

  49. [60]

    Pineda, Rosalva Mejia, Yuanzhi Qin, Julian Martinez, Lizbet G

    Blanca S. Pineda, Rosalva Mejia, Yuanzhi Qin, Julian Martinez, Lizbet G. Del- gadillo, and Ricardo F. Muñoz. 2023. Updated taxonomy of digital mental health interventions: a conceptual framework.mHealth9 (June 2023), 28. doi:10.21037/mhealth-23-6

    2023 doi

  50. [61]

    Farhat Tasnim Progga and Sabirat Rubya. 2025. Women’s Perspectives and Challenges in Adopting Perinatal Mental Health Technologies.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction9, 1 (Jan. 2025), GROUP38:1–GROUP38:30. doi:10.1145/3701217

    2025 doi

  51. [62]

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Tao Xu, Greg Brockman, Christine Mcleavey, and Ilya Sutskever. 2023. Robust Speech Recognition via Large-Scale Weak Super- vision. InProceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, Honolulu, Hawaii, 28492–28518. https://...

    2023

  52. [63]

    Ladner, Batya Friedman, and Julie A

    Kyle Rector, Lauren Milne, Richard E. Ladner, Batya Friedman, and Julie A. Kientz

  53. [64]

    Clairissa G Richardson. 2024. The Underutilization of Mental Health Care Services in the Lives of People with Blindness or Vi- sual Impairment: A Literature Review on Rehabilitation Factors To- ward Provision.Clinical Ophthalmology18 (Dec. 2024), 953–980. _eprint: https://www....

    2024 doi

  54. [65]

    Fujiko Robledo Yamamoto, Amy Voida, and Stephen Voida. 2021. From Therapy to Teletherapy: Relocating Mental Health Services Online.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5, CSCW2 (Oct. 2021), 364:1–364:30. doi:10. 1145/3479508

    2021

  55. [66]

    Disabled People

    Ather Sharif, Aedan Liam McCall, and Kianna Roces Bolante. 2022. Should I Say “Disabled People” or “People with Disabilities”? Language Preferences of Disabled People Between Identity- and Person-First Language. InProceedings of the 24th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference ...

    2022

  56. [67]

    Qassem, and Panicos A

    Mahsa Sheikh, M. Qassem, and Panicos A. Kyriacou. 2021. Wearable, Environ- mental, and Smartphone-Based Passive Sensing for Mental Health Monitoring. Frontiers in Digital Health3 (April 2021), 21. doi:10.3389/fdgth.2021.662811

    2021

  57. [68]

    Sang-Wha Sien. 2023. Designing for Inclusivity and Accessibility of Mental Health Technologies. InExtended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–4. doi:10.1145/3544549.3577038

    2023

  58. [69]

    Ahn, and Joanna McGrenere

    Sang-Wha Sien, Jessica Y. Ahn, and Joanna McGrenere. 2023. Co-designing Mental Health Technologies with International University Students in Canada. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction7, CSCW2 (Oct. 2023), 258:1–258:25. doi:10.1145/3610049

    2023 doi

  59. [70]

    Petr Slovak and Sean A. Munson. 2024. HCI Contributions in Mental Health: A Modular Framework to Guide Psychosocial Intervention Design. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24). Associa- tion for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, US...

    2024 doi

  60. [71]

    Adrienne Smith and Rebecca Zulli. 2018. Asset Maps: A Simple Tool for Recruiting and Retaining Underrepresented Populations in Computer Science (Abstract Only). InProceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’18). Association for Comput...

    2018

  61. [72]

    I Don’t Want My Mental Health App To Give Me Mental Health Barriers

    Jose Luis Soler-Dominguez, Samuel Navas-Medrano, and Patricia Pons. 2024. ARCADIA: A Gamified Mixed Reality System for Emotional Regulation and Self- Compassion. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24). Association for Computing Mach...

    2024

  62. [73]

    Ewan Soubutts, Pranita Shrestha, Brittany I Davidson, Chengcheng Qu, Charlotte Mindel, Aaron Sefi, Paul Marshall, and Roisin Mcnaney. 2024. Challenges and Opportunities for the Design of Inclusive Digital Mental Health Tools: Under- standing Culturally Diverse Young People’s E...

    2024

  63. [74]

    Bennett, Emeline Brulé, Rua M

    Katta Spiel, Kathrin Gerling, Cynthia L. Bennett, Emeline Brulé, Rua M. Williams, Jennifer Rode, and Jennifer Mankoff. 2020. Nothing About Us Without Us: Investigating the Role of Critical Disability Studies in HCI. InExtended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Fact...

    2020

  64. [75]

    Lotus Zhang. 2024. Designing Accessible Content Creation Support with Blind and Low Vision Creators.ACM SIGACCESS Accessibility and Computing137 (March 2024), 7:1. doi:10.1145/3654768.3654775

    2024

  65. [76]

    I Don’t Want My Mental Health App To Give Me Mental Health Barriers

    Renwen Zhang, Kathryn E. Ringland, Melina Paan, David C. Mohr, and Madhu Reddy. 2021. Designing for Emotional Well-being: Integrating Persuasion and Customization into Mental Health Technologies. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (C...

    2021

  66. [2015]

    InProceedings of the 17th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility (ASSETS ’15)

    Exploring the Opportunities and Challenges with Exercise Technologies for People who are Blind or Low-Vision. InProceedings of the 17th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility (ASSETS ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 203...

    doi

  67. [2017]

    doi:10.1080/1536710X.2017.1260515

    Availability of Mental Health Services for Individuals Who Are Deaf or Deaf-Blind.Journal of Social Work in Disability & Rehabilitation16, 1 (2017), 1–13. doi:10.1080/1536710X.2017.1260515

    2017

  68. [2018]

    Suddenly, we got to become therapists for each other

    “Suddenly, we got to become therapists for each other”: Designing Peer Support Chats for Mental Health. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. doi:10.1145/3173574.3173905

    2018

  69. [2020]

    In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’20)

    Time to Get Personal: Individualised Virtual Reality for Mental Health. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–9. doi:10.1145/3334480.3382932

    2020

  70. [2021]

    It’s About Missing Much More Than the People

    “It’s About Missing Much More Than the People”: How Students use Digital Technologies to Alleviate Homesickness. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–17. doi:10.1145/...

    2021

  71. [2022]

    InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’22)

    User Perspectives and Ethical Experiences of Apps for Depression: A Qualitative Analysis of User Reviews. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–24. doi:10.1145/3491102.3517498

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.