pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.01231 · v3 · pith:TABK3S4Xnew · submitted 2025-09-01 · 💻 cs.HC · cs.CY

Unpacking "Personal" Health Informatics for Proactive Collective Care

Shyama Sastha Krishnamoorthy Srinivasan , Mohan Kumar , Pushpendra Singh This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 21:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC cs.CY
keywords collective health informaticspersonal health informaticsproactive collective carecare circlesdesign recommendationsmixed-methods studyco-design workshopsagency elicitation engagement
0
0 comments X

The pith

Personal health tools designed for individuals create challenges for collective care practices, which redesign toward Collective Health Informatics using the CC-Proact map can address.

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

Care happens as a collective activity in which people share health and wellbeing information inside trusted circles of family and companions to make sense of it, decide, and act. Current digital systems built for single users create mismatches that limit adoption and sustained use at personal, relational, technological, and structural levels. The study maps these constraints through surveys, interviews, and workshops and then tests ways to redesign the tools so they still respect individual agency. The resulting CC-Proact map turns ecological influences into three levers—Agency, Elicitation, and Engagement—to guide systems that support coordinated yet trustworthy action. Ten design recommendations follow for building responsible systems that fit actual collective care.

Core claim

The central claim is that the mismatch between collective care practices and individualistic Personal Health Informatics design creates barriers at multiple levels, and that redesigning toward Collective Health Informatics, guided by the CC-Proact operational map that translates those influences into the design levers of Agency, Elicitation, and Engagement, produces ten concrete recommendations for systems that enable proactive collective care while retaining individual control.

What carries the argument

The CC-Proact operational map, which converts ecological influences at personal, relational, technological, and structural levels into three design levers—Agency, Elicitation, and Engagement—to guide the redesign of health informatics for collective settings.

If this is right

  • Systems built with the three levers can support sharing and collective sensemaking of health information inside care circles while preserving each person's sense of agency.
  • Designs must account for constraints that shift over time across personal, relational, technological, and structural layers.
  • Coordinated and trustworthy action across care relationships becomes feasible once the map is applied through design probes and co-design.
  • Ten specific recommendations emerge for responsible systems that proactively support collective rather than solely individual care.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The map could be tested in non-Western family structures to check whether the same three levers still capture the main ecological influences.
  • Policy makers might draw on the levers when setting standards for digital health platforms that serve groups rather than isolated users.
  • The approach could extend to other domains where information is shared in trusted circles, such as financial planning or educational support.

Load-bearing premise

The constraints and design needs observed in the participant groups from the surveys, interviews, and workshops apply to broader populations and care settings.

What would settle it

A field trial that implements the CC-Proact levers in new health applications and measures whether collective sensemaking, decision follow-through, and sustained engagement increase compared with standard individual-focused tools would falsify the claim if no improvement appears.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.01231 by Mohan Kumar, Pushpendra Singh, Shyama Sastha Krishnamoorthy Srinivasan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Workflow of the sequential Study. usability and preference feedback to refine those concepts. The workflow of the overall study is presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Sample screenshot of card sorting activity. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Sample screenshots of the rapid figma prototype. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The takeaways from the prototype evaluation are listed in Table 4. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Care is primarily a collective phenomenon, with a practice that involves sharing health and wellbeing information within a trusted "care circle" of family members and companions for sensemaking, interpretation, decision-making, and follow-through. However, current digital health tools and information systems are designed for individuals and primarily intended for Personal Health Informatics (PHI). This mismatch between collective practice and individualistic design creates new challenges for the proactive use of such systems in care settings and limits adoption, sustained engagement, and meaningful use. To examine how people practice collective care and how (if) they perceive, adopt, and integrate PHI systems for proactive care, we conducted a sequential mixed-methods study. Through an initial survey (n=87) and semi-structured interviews (n=22), we found that their practices involve collectively understanding, analyzing, and sensemaking health information. However, we also found that their use of existing systems to support such practices is constrained by factors at personal, relational, technological, and structural levels that evolve over time. To explore redesigning PHI toward "Collective Health Informatics", we conducted stakeholder-specific interviews (n=12), a follow-up survey (n=116), and co-design workshops (n=6) to understand the dynamics required for collective settings while retaining agency. Using a design probe evaluation (n=38), we refine a design vision for coordinated, trustworthy action across such care relationships. Our findings motivate CC-Proact, an operational map that translates ecological influences into three design levers: Agency, Elicitation, and Engagement. Using this map, our work empirically examines collective care practices and offers ten design recommendations for building responsible systems that proactively support collective care.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that current Personal Health Informatics (PHI) tools, designed for individuals, create mismatches with collective care practices in trusted care circles, leading to constraints at personal, relational, technological, and structural levels that hinder proactive use. Through a sequential mixed-methods study (initial survey n=87, interviews n=22, stakeholder interviews n=12, follow-up survey n=116, workshops n=6, design probe n=38), the authors identify these practices and constraints, then propose the CC-Proact operational map with three design levers (Agency, Elicitation, Engagement) to guide redesign toward Collective Health Informatics, supported by ten design recommendations.

Significance. If the empirical observations and CC-Proact framework hold beyond the studied samples, this work could meaningfully advance health informatics design by emphasizing collective sensemaking and coordinated action, potentially improving adoption and sustained engagement in family-based care settings. The iterative mixed-methods approach, including design probe evaluation, provides concrete, actionable insights that distinguish this from purely theoretical contributions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods and Results] The central claim that the identified constraints and CC-Proact levers translate into actionable redesigns for proactive collective care (abstract and final recommendations) depends on transferability from the reported samples. The modest sizes (e.g., workshops n=6; design probe n=38) and absence of detailed recruitment strategy or demographic breakdown in the methods/results sections make it difficult to assess whether findings generalize to varied care circles, conditions, or cultural contexts.
  2. [Discussion] § on design recommendations and CC-Proact map: the move from observed practices in the specific participant groups to ten general recommendations assumes the constraints at personal/relational/technological/structural levels are broadly representative, yet no cross-validation, scoping, or explicit limitations discussion addresses this transferability risk.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states the study is sequential mixed-methods but omits details on qualitative analysis methods, inter-rater reliability, or how findings were validated across stages; adding a brief methods overview would improve transparency without altering the core narrative.
  2. [Introduction] Notation for 'CC-Proact' and 'care circle' is introduced late; defining these terms and the three levers earlier (e.g., in the introduction or a dedicated figure) would aid readability for readers unfamiliar with the framework.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We value the emphasis on transferability and generalizability, which are critical for the applicability of our findings in health informatics. We address each major comment below and outline the revisions we will make to strengthen the paper.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods and Results] The central claim that the identified constraints and CC-Proact levers translate into actionable redesigns for proactive collective care (abstract and final recommendations) depends on transferability from the reported samples. The modest sizes (e.g., workshops n=6; design probe n=38) and absence of detailed recruitment strategy or demographic breakdown in the methods/results sections make it difficult to assess whether findings generalize to varied care circles, conditions, or cultural contexts.

    Authors: We appreciate this observation on sample sizes and the need for transparency in recruitment and demographics. Our sequential mixed-methods approach prioritizes depth in the qualitative phases, with the workshops (n=6) serving as focused co-design sessions and the design probe (n=38) providing evaluative feedback, which aligns with established practices in HCI for iterative design research. The quantitative surveys (n=87 and n=116) offer broader context. We acknowledge that detailed recruitment strategies and demographic breakdowns were not fully elaborated in the original submission. In the revised manuscript, we will expand the Methods section to include comprehensive recruitment details (e.g., channels used, inclusion criteria) and a full demographic table or summary for all participant groups. This will better enable readers to evaluate the transferability of our findings to diverse care circles, health conditions, and cultural settings. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Discussion] § on design recommendations and CC-Proact map: the move from observed practices in the specific participant groups to ten general recommendations assumes the constraints at personal/relational/technological/structural levels are broadly representative, yet no cross-validation, scoping, or explicit limitations discussion addresses this transferability risk.

    Authors: We agree that the generalizability of the ten design recommendations and the CC-Proact map warrants explicit discussion. While our multi-phase design incorporates elements of cross-validation—such as the follow-up survey (n=116) building on initial survey and interview findings to refine themes—the paper does not sufficiently highlight this or address limitations. In the revision, we will add a dedicated subsection in the Discussion on limitations and transferability, explicitly noting the participant demographics and contexts studied, potential biases, and the exploratory nature of the recommendations. We will frame the CC-Proact levers and recommendations as empirically grounded design implications that require further validation in broader populations, rather than assuming broad representativeness. This will include suggestions for future scoping reviews or cross-cultural studies. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical findings derive CC-Proact map directly from study data

full rationale

The paper reports results from a sequential mixed-methods study (initial survey n=87, interviews n=22, follow-up survey n=116, stakeholder interviews n=12, workshops n=6, design probe n=38) that identifies personal/relational/technological/structural constraints in collective care and then synthesizes the CC-Proact operational map with its three levers. These elements are presented as outputs of the collected observations rather than inputs presupposed by definition, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations. No equations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes appear; the ten design recommendations follow from the empirical patterns without reducing to prior self-referential claims. The derivation is therefore self-contained against the reported participant data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The work rests on the domain assumption that care is primarily collective and that current PHI tools are designed individualistically; it introduces the CC-Proact map as a new synthesis without external independent validation beyond the conducted studies.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Care is primarily a collective phenomenon involving sharing health and wellbeing information within a trusted care circle for sensemaking and decision-making.
    Explicitly stated as the opening premise of the abstract that motivates the entire study.
invented entities (1)
  • CC-Proact no independent evidence
    purpose: Operational map that translates ecological influences into three design levers (Agency, Elicitation, Engagement) for collective health informatics.
    Newly introduced framework derived from the studies to guide redesign of PHI systems.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5841 in / 1484 out tokens · 36636 ms · 2026-05-21T21:59:05.984079+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

158 extracted references · 158 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Majed Abdullah Alrowaily. 2024. Smart Emergency Alerting System: A Machine Learning Approach. InProceedings of the 2024 2nd International Conference on Communications, Computing and Artificial Intelligence (CCCAI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3676581.3676583

    work page doi:10.1145/3676581.3676583 2024

  2. [2]

    Flora Amato, Walter Balzano, and Giovanni Cozzolino. 2022. Design of a Wearable Healthcare Emergency Detection Device for Elder Persons.Applied Sciences12, 5 (Jan. 2022), 2345. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12052345

    work page doi:10.3390/app12052345 2022

  3. [3]

    Larry Durstine

    Elizabeth Anderson and J. Larry Durstine. 2019. Physical Activity, Exercise, and Chronic Diseases: A Brief Review.Sports Medicine and Health Science1, 1 (Dec. 2019), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smhs.2019.08.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.smhs.2019.08.006 2019

  4. [4]

    Urvashi Aneja, Aarushi Gupta, and Aditya Vashistha. 2025. Beyond Semantics: Examining Gender Bias in LLMs Deployed within Low-resource Contexts in India. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2784–2795. https://doi.org/10.1145/3715275.3732180

    work page doi:10.1145/3715275.3732180 2025

  5. [5]

    Ankrah, Franceli L

    Elizabeth A. Ankrah, Franceli L. Cibrian, Lucas M. Silva, Arya Tavakoulnia, Jesus A. Beltran, Sabrina E.b. Schuck, Kimberley D. Lakes, and Gillian R. Hayes. 2023. Me, My Health, and My Watch: How Children with ADHD Understand Smartwatch Health Data.ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.30, 4 (Sept. 2023), 59:1–59:25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3577008

    work page doi:10.1145/3577008 2023

  6. [6]

    Elaine Auld, Marin P

    M. Elaine Auld, Marin P. Allen, Cicily Hampton, J. Henry Montes, Cherylee Sherry, Angela D. Mickalide, Robert A. Logan, Wilma Alvarado-Little, and Kim Parson. 2020. Health Literacy and Health Education in Schools: Collaboration for Action.NAM Perspectives 2020 (July 2020), 10.31478/202007b. https://doi.org/10.31478/202007b

    work page doi:10.31478/202007b 2020

  7. [7]

    Naveen Bagalkot, Nervo Verdezoto, Anushri Ghode, Shipra Purohit, Lakshmi Murthy, Nicola Mackintosh, and Paula Griffiths. 2020. Beyond Health Literacy: Navigating Boundaries and Relationships During High-risk Pregnancies: Challenges and Opportunities for Digital Health in North-West India. InProceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Inter...

    work page doi:10.1145/3419249 2020

  8. [8]

    Matteo Bastico, Verónica Ruiz Bejerano, and Alberto Belmonte-Hernández. 2022. Simultaneous Real-Time Human Fall Detection and Reidentification Based on Multisensors Data. InProceedings of the 15th International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: November 2018. Designing for Proactive Collective Car...

    work page arXiv 2022

  9. [9]

    Bat-Orgil Bat-Erdene and Jeffrey L. Saver. 2021. Automatic Acute Stroke Symptom Detection and Emergency Medical Systems Alerting by Mobile Health Technologies: A Review.Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases30, 7 (July 2021), 105826. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2021.105826

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2021.105826 2021

  10. [10]

    Franziska Bathelt, Ines Reinecke, Brita Sedlmayr, Sepp Höhne, Christian Gierschner, and Martin Sedlmayr. 2022. Visualization of medical wearable-data using SMART-on-FHIR–A concept for an interdisciplinary complex practical course. InDigital Professionalism in Health and Care: Developing the Workforce, Building the Future. IOS Press, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 61–65

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    2022.The Essentials of Teaching Health Education: Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment

    Sarah Benes and Holly Alperin. 2022.The Essentials of Teaching Health Education: Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment. Human Kinetics, United States

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    We Are Half-Doctors

    Karthik S. Bhat, Amanda K. Hall, Tiffany Kuo, and Neha Kumar. 2023. "We Are Half-Doctors": Family Caregivers as Boundary Actors in Chronic Disease Management.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.7, CSCW1 (April 2023), 111:1–111:29. https://doi.org/10.1145/3579545

    work page doi:10.1145/3579545 2023

  13. [13]

    Bhat and Neha Kumar

    Karthik S. Bhat and Neha Kumar. 2020. Sociocultural Dimensions of Tracking Health and Taking Care.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.4, CSCW2 (Oct. 2020), 129:1–129:24. https://doi.org/10.1145/3415200

    work page doi:10.1145/3415200 2020

  14. [14]

    Carroll, Natalie Cope, Chien Wen (Tina) Yuan, and Eun Kyoung Choe

    Jomara Binda, Hyehyun Park, John M. Carroll, Natalie Cope, Chien Wen (Tina) Yuan, and Eun Kyoung Choe. 2017. Intergenerational Sharing of Health Data among Family Members. InProceedings of the 11th EAI International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare (PervasiveHealth ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3154862.3154895 2017

  15. [15]

    Jomara Binda, Chien Wen Yuan, Natalie Cope, Hyehyun Park, Eun Kyoung Choe, and John M. Carroll. 2018. Supporting Effective Sharing of Health Information among Intergenerational Family Members. InProceedings of the 12th EAI International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare(New York, NY, USA)(PervasiveHealth ’18). Association for C...

    work page doi:10.1145/3240925.3240936 2018

  16. [16]

    Ann Blandford. 2019. HCI for Health and Wellbeing: Challenges and Opportunities.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 131 (Nov. 2019), 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.06.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.06.007 2019

  17. [17]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.Qualitative Research in Psychology3, 2 (Jan. 2006), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

    work page doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa 2006

  18. [18]

    Urie Bronfenbrenner. 1974. Developmental Research, Public Policy, and the Ecology of Childhood.Child Development45, 1 (1974), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.2307/1127743

    work page doi:10.2307/1127743 1974

  19. [19]

    Damien Brun and Jonna Häkkilä. 2022. Exploration of Electrochromics for Calm Reminder: A Customizable Bracelet. InProceedings of the 33rd Australian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (OzCHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 269–272. https://doi.org/10.1145/3520495.3520509

    work page doi:10.1145/3520495.3520509 2022

  20. [20]

    Bengisu Cagiltay and Bilge Mutlu. 2024. Toward Family-Robot Interactions: A Family-Centered Framework in HRI. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1145/3610977.3634976

    work page doi:10.1145/3610977.3634976 2024

  21. [21]

    Nancy Carter, Denise Bryant-Lukosius, Alba DiCenso, Jennifer Blythe, and Alan J. Neville. 2014. The Use of Triangulation in Qualitative Research.Oncology Nursing Forum41, 5 (Sept. 2014), 545–547. https://doi.org/10.1188/14.ONF.545-547

    work page doi:10.1188/14.onf.545-547 2014

  22. [22]

    Yoon Jeong Cha, Jiongyu Chen, Yasemin Gunal, Qiying Zhu, Mark W Newman, and Sun Young Park. 2025. Collaborative Health- Tracking Technologies for Children and Parents: A Review of Current Studies and Directions for Future Research. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Yokohama, Japan)(CHI ’25). Association for Com...

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713596 2025

  23. [23]

    Yoon Jeong Cha, Yasemin Gunal, Alice Wou, Joyce Lee, Mark W Newman, and Sun Young Park. 2024. Shared Responsibility in Collaborative Tracking for Children with Type 1 Diabetes and Their Parents. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–20. https://doi.org...

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642344 2024

  24. [24]

    Ranganathan Chandrasekaran, Vipanchi Katthula, and Evangelos Moustakas. 2020. Patterns of Use and Key Predictors for the Use of Wearable Health Care Devices by US Adults: Insights from a National Survey.Journal of Medical Internet Research22, 10 (Oct. 2020), e22443. https://doi.org/10.2196/22443

    work page doi:10.2196/22443 2020

  25. [25]

    Zhaoxin Chang, Fusang Zhang, Xujun Ma, Pei Wang, Weiyan Chen, Duo Zhang, Badii Jouaber, and Daqing Zhang. 2024. MmECare: Enabling Fine-grained Vital Sign Monitoring for Emergency Care with Handheld MmWave Radars.Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.8, 4, Article 207 (Nov. 2024), 24 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3699766

    work page doi:10.1145/3699766 2024

  26. [26]

    Wenqiang Chen, Jiaxuan Cheng, Leyao Wang, Wei Zhao, and Wojciech Matusik. 2024. Sensor2Text: Enabling Natural Language Interactions for Daily Activity Tracking Using Wearable Sensors.Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.8, 4, Article 192 (Nov. 2024), 26 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3699747

    work page doi:10.1145/3699747 2024

  27. [27]

    Josh Cherian, Samantha Ray, Thomas Mernar, Paul Taele, Helen Mach, Jung In Koh, Ping Ye, and Tracy Hammond. 2024. A Step Toward Better Care: Understanding What Caregivers and Residents in Assisted Living Facilities Value in Health Monitoring Systems. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.8, CSCW1 (April 2024), 13:1–13:29. https://doi.org/10.1145/3637290 , Vol. ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3637290 2024

  28. [28]

    Marta Chmielewski and Matthew J. Meyer. 2024. Discussions With End Users to Inform the Vision for a Shared Care Record in Ontario: Qualitative Interview Study.Online Journal of Public Health Informatics16, 1 (Feb. 2024), e51231. https://doi.org/10.2196/51231

    work page doi:10.2196/51231 2024

  29. [29]

    Sylvia Cho, Chunhua Weng, Michael G Kahn, and Karthik Natarajan. 2021. Identifying Data Quality Dimensions for Person-Generated Wearable Device Data: Multi-Method Study.JMIR Mhealth Uhealth9, 12 (23 Dec 2021), e31618. https://doi.org/10.2196/31618

    work page doi:10.2196/31618 2021

  30. [30]

    Shaan Chopra, Katherine Juarez, James Fogarty, and Sean A. Munson. 2025. Engagements with Generative AI and Personal Health Informatics: Opportunities for Planning, Tracking, Reflecting, and Acting around Personal Health Data.Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.9, 3, Article 75 (Sept. 2025), 33 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3749503

    work page doi:10.1145/3749503 2025

  31. [31]

    Akshat Choube, Ha Le, Jiachen Li, Kaixin Ji, Vedant Das Swain, and Varun Mishra. 2025. GLOSS: Group of LLMs for Open-ended Sensemaking of Passive Sensing Data for Health and Wellbeing.Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.9, 3, Article 76 (Sept. 2025), 32 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3749474

    work page doi:10.1145/3749474 2025

  32. [32]

    Shklovski, and Sean Munson

    Chia-Fang Chung, Nanna Gorm, Irina A. Shklovski, and Sean Munson. 2017. Finding the Right Fit: Understanding Health Tracking in Workplace Wellness Programs. InProceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Denver, Colorado, USA)(CHI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 4875–4886. https://doi.org/10.11...

    work page doi:10.1145/3025453.3025510 2017

  33. [33]

    Mayara Costa Figueiredo and Yunan Chen. 2021. Health Data in Fertility Care: An Ecological Perspective. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445189

    work page doi:10.1145/3411764.3445189 2021

  34. [34]

    Creaser, Jennifer Hall, Silvia Costa, Daniel D

    Amy V. Creaser, Jennifer Hall, Silvia Costa, Daniel D. Bingham, and Stacy A. Clemes. 2022. Exploring Families’ Acceptance of Wearable Activity Trackers: A Mixed-Methods Study.International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health19, 6 (March 2022), 3472. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063472

    work page doi:10.3390/ijerph19063472 2022

  35. [35]

    Yueng Santiago Delahoz and Miguel Angel Labrador. 2014. Survey on Fall Detection and Fall Prevention Using Wearable and External Sensors.Sensors14, 10 (Oct. 2014), 19806–19842. https://doi.org/10.3390/s141019806

    work page doi:10.3390/s141019806 2014

  36. [36]

    Galvez Trigo, Adrian Hazzard, Martin Porcheron, Edgar Bodiaj, Joel E

    Joy Egede, Maria J. Galvez Trigo, Adrian Hazzard, Martin Porcheron, Edgar Bodiaj, Joel E. Fischer, Chris Greenhalgh, and Michel Valstar. 2021. Designing an Adaptive Embodied Conversational Agent for Health Literacy: A User Study. InProceedings of the 21st ACM International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents (IV A ’21). Association for Computing Mach...

    work page doi:10.1145/3472306.3478350 2021

  37. [37]

    Epstein, Clara Caldeira, Mayara Costa Figueiredo, Xi Lu, Lucas M

    Daniel A. Epstein, Clara Caldeira, Mayara Costa Figueiredo, Xi Lu, Lucas M. Silva, Lucretia Williams, Jong Ho Lee, Qingyang Li, Simran Ahuja, Qiuer Chen, Payam Dowlatyari, Craig Hilby, Sazeda Sultana, Elizabeth V. Eikey, and Yunan Chen. 2020. Mapping and Taking Stock of the Personal Informatics Literature.Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Techn...

    work page doi:10.1145/3432231 2020

  38. [38]

    Epstein, An Ping, James Fogarty, and Sean A

    Daniel A. Epstein, An Ping, James Fogarty, and Sean A. Munson. 2015. A Lived Informatics Model of Personal Informatics. InProceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 731–742. https://doi.org/10.1145/2750858.2804250

    work page doi:10.1145/2750858.2804250 2015

  39. [39]

    Hayley Irene Evans, Catherine R Deeter, Jiawei Zhou, Kimberly Do, Andrew M Sherrill, and Rosa I. Arriaga. 2022. Perspectives on Integrating Trusted Other Feedback in Therapy for Veterans with PTSD. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–16. https:/...

    work page doi:10.1145/3491102.3517513 2022

  40. [40]

    Clayton Feustel, Shyamak Aggarwal, Bongshin Lee, and Lauren Wilcox. 2018. People Like Me: Designing for Reflection on Aggregate Cohort Data in Personal Informatics Systems.Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.2, 3, Article 107 (Sept. 2018), 21 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3264917

    work page doi:10.1145/3264917 2018

  41. [41]

    Huang, Gail C

    Thomas Fritz, Elaine M. Huang, Gail C. Murphy, and Thomas Zimmermann. 2014. Persuasive Technology in the Real World: A Study of Long-Term Use of Activity Sensing Devices for Fitness. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 487–496. https://doi.org/10.11...

    work page doi:10.1145/2556288.2557383 2014

  42. [42]

    Manthan Ghosh and Deepa Das. 2024. Voice-Activated SOS: An AI-Enabled Wearable Device. InImpact of AI on Advancing Women’s Safety. IGI Global, Pennsylvania, USA, 251–277. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-2679-4.ch016

    work page doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-2679-4.ch016 2024

  43. [43]

    Hristijan Gjoreski, Jani Bizjak, and Matja Gams. 2016. Using Smartwatch as Telecare and Fall Detection Device. In2016 12th International Conference on Intelligent Environments (IE). IEEE, London, UK, 242–245. https://doi.org/10.1109/IE.2016.55

    work page doi:10.1109/ie.2016.55 2016

  44. [44]

    Price, Anna Klis-Davies, and Julie Webb

    Daniel Gooch, Blaine A. Price, Anna Klis-Davies, and Julie Webb. 2021. A Design Exploration of Health-Related Community Displays. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.5, CSCW1 (April 2021), 85:1–85:22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449159

    work page doi:10.1145/3449159 2021

  45. [45]

    Sophie Grimme, Susanna Marie Spoerl, Susanne Boll, and Marion Koelle. 2024. My Data, My Choice, My Insights: Women’s Requirements When Collecting, Interpreting and Sharing Their Personal Health Data. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–18. https://do...

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642851 2024

  46. [46]

    Meghna Gupta, Devansh Mehta, Anandita Punj, and Indrani Medhi Thies. 2022. Sophistication with Limitation: Understanding Smartphone Usage by Emergent Users in India. InProceedings of the 5th ACM SIGCAS/SIGCHI Conference on Computing and Sustainable Societies(Seattle, WA, USA)(COMPASS ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 386–400. h...

    work page arXiv 2022

  47. [47]

    Lena-Karin Gustafsson, Ildikó Asztalos Morell, Carl Johansson, and Santa De. 2022. Informal Caregiving from the Perspectives of Older People Living Alone in India.International Journal of Older People Nursing17, 6 (Nov. 2022), e12468. https://doi.org/10.1111/opn.12468

    work page doi:10.1111/opn.12468 2022

  48. [48]

    Butt Call Me Once You Get a Chance to Chat &#x1F642

    MD Romael Haque, Zeno Franco, Praveen Madiraju, Natalie D Baker, Sheikh Iqbal Ahamed, Otis Winstead, Robert Curry, and Sabirat Rubya. 2024. "Butt Call Me Once You Get a Chance to Chat 🙂" : Designing Persuasive Reminders for Veterans to Facilitate Peer-Mentor Support. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’2...

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642962 2024

  49. [49]

    Daniel Harrison, Paul Marshall, Nadia Bianchi-Berthouze, and Jon Bird. 2015. Activity tracking: barriers, workarounds and customisation. InProceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing(Osaka, Japan)(UbiComp ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 617–621. https://doi.org/10.1145/2750...

    work page doi:10.1145/2750858.2805832 2015

  50. [50]

    Rakibul Hoque and Yukun Bao

    Md. Rakibul Hoque and Yukun Bao. 2015. Cultural Influence on Adoption and Use of E-Health: Evidence in Bangladesh.Telemedicine and e-Health21, 10 (Oct. 2015), 845–851. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2014.0128

    work page doi:10.1089/tmj.2014.0128 2015

  51. [51]

    Redmiles, Satya Lokam, and Konstantin Beznosov

    Yue Huang, Borke Obada-Obieh, Elissa M. Redmiles, Satya Lokam, and Konstantin Beznosov. 2022. COVID-19 Information-Tracking Solutions: A Qualitative Investigation of the Factors Influencing People’s Adoption Intention. InProceedings of the 2022 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval (CHIIR ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3498366.3505756 2022

  52. [52]

    Sophie Huhn, Miriam Axt, Hanns-Christian Gunga, Martina Anna Maggioni, Stephen Munga, David Obor, Ali Sié, Valentin Boudo, Aditi Bunker, Rainer Sauerborn, Till Bärnighausen, and Sandra Barteit. 2022. The Impact of Wearable Technologies in Health Research: Scoping Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth10, 1 (Jan. 2022), e34384. https://doi.org/10.2196/34384

    work page doi:10.2196/34384 2022

  53. [53]

    Angel Hsing-Chi Hwang, Dan Adler, Meir Friedenberg, and Qian Yang. 2024. Societal-Scale Human-AI Interaction Design? How Hospitals and Companies Are Integrating Pervasive Sensing into Mental Healthcare. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–16. https:/...

    work page arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    Stephen S Intille. 2004. Ubiquitous computing technology for just-in-time motivation of behavior change. InMEDINFO 2004. IOS Press, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1434–1437

    work page 2004

  55. [55]

    Wong, Patrick Ip, and Edith C.H

    Zhihan Jiang, Lin Lin, Xinchen Zhang, Jianduo Luan, Running Zhao, Longbiao Chen, James Lam, Ka-Man Yip, Hung-Kwan So, Wilfred H.S. Wong, Patrick Ip, and Edith C.H. Ngai. 2023. A Data-Driven Context-Aware Health Inference System for Children during School Closures.Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.7, 1, Article 18 (March 2023), 26 pages....

    work page doi:10.1145/3580800 2023

  56. [56]

    Spencer Jones, Paul Heaton, Robert Rudin, and Eric Schneider. 2012. Unraveling the IT Productivity Paradox - Lessons for Health Care. The New England journal of medicine366 (June 2012), 2243–5. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1204980

    work page doi:10.1056/nejmp1204980 2012

  57. [57]

    Jones, William Hue, Ryan M

    Simon L. Jones, William Hue, Ryan M. Kelly, Rosemarie Barnett, Violet Henderson, and Raj Sengupta. 2021. Determinants of Longitudinal Adherence in Smartphone-Based Self-Tracking for Chronic Health Conditions: Evidence from Axial Spondyloarthritis.Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.5, 1, Article 16 (March 2021), 24 pages. https://doi.org/...

    work page doi:10.1145/3448093 2021

  58. [58]

    Kazi Sinthia Kabir and Jason Wiese. 2023. A Meta-Synthesis of the Barriers and Facilitators for Personal Informatics Systems.Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.7, 3 (Sept. 2023), 103:1–103:35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3610893

    work page doi:10.1145/3610893 2023

  59. [59]

    Harjeevan Singh Kang and Mark Exworthy. 2022. Wearing the Future—Wearables to Empower Users to Take Greater Responsibility for Their Health and Care: Scoping Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth10, 7 (July 2022), e35684. https://doi.org/10.2196/35684

    work page doi:10.2196/35684 2022

  60. [60]

    Telljohann, and Susan F

    Laura Kann, Susan K. Telljohann, and Susan F. Wooley. 2007. Health Education: Results From the School Health Policies and Programs Study 2006.Journal of School Health77, 8 (2007), 408–434. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2007.00228.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2007.00228.x 2007

  61. [61]

    Shivani Kapania, Oliver Siy, Gabe Clapper, Azhagu Meena SP, and Nithya Sambasivan. 2022. ”Because AI Is 100% Right and Safe”: User Attitudes and Sources of AI Authority in India. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1145/34...

    work page doi:10.1145/3491102.3517533 2022

  62. [62]

    Nimisha Karnatak, Brooke Loughrin, Tiffany Amy Kuo, Odeline Mateu-Silvernail, Indrani Medhi Thies, William Thies, and Mohit Jain

    work page

  63. [63]

    Is It Even Giving the Correct Reading or Not?

    “Is It Even Giving the Correct Reading or Not?”: How Trust and Relationships Mediate Blood Pressure Management in India. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.30, 6 (Sept. 2023), 90:1–90:27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3609327

    work page doi:10.1145/3609327 2023

  64. [64]

    Naveena Karusala, Victoria G, Shirley Yan, and Richard Anderson. 2023. Unsettling Care Infrastructures: From the Individual to the Structural in a Digital Maternal and Child Health Intervention. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–16. https://do...

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548.3581553 2023

  65. [65]

    Naveena Karusala, Shirley Yan, Nupoor Rajkumar, Victoria G, and Richard Anderson. 2023. Speculating with Care: Worker-centered Perspectives on Scale in a Chat-based Health Information Service.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.7, CSCW2 (Oct. 2023), 361:1–361:26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3610210

    work page doi:10.1145/3610210 2023

  66. [66]

    Jasmeet Kaur and Pushpendra Singh. 2025. Exploring the Potential of Peer Support Group for Family Planning Needs of Women in Resource-constrained Settings in India.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.9, 2, Article CSCW080 (May 2025), 25 pages. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3710978 , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: November 2018. 24•SS K Srinivasan, M Ku...

    work page doi:10.1145/3710978 2025

  67. [67]

    Dhillon, Anthony Maeder, Patricia A

    Emma Kemp, Joshua Trigg, Lisa Beatty, Chris Christensen, Haryana M. Dhillon, Anthony Maeder, Patricia A. H. Williams, and Bogda Koczwara. 2021. Health Literacy, Digital Health Literacy and the Implementation of Digital Health Technologies in Cancer Care: The Need for a Strategic Approach.Health Promotion Journal of Australia32, S1 (2021), 104–114. https:/...

    work page doi:10.1002/hpja.387 2021

  68. [68]

    Hamed Ketabdar and Tim Polzehl. 2009. Fall and emergency detection with mobile phones. InProceedings of the 11th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility(Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA)(Assets ’09). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 241–242. https://doi.org/10.1145/1639642.1639695

    work page doi:10.1145/1639642.1639695 2009

  69. [69]

    Jeong-Kyun Kim, Da-Som Oh, Kangbok Lee, and Sang Gi Hong. 2022. Fall Detection Based on Interpretation of Important Features with Wrist-Wearable Sensors. InProceedings of the 28th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing And Networking (MobiCom ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 823–825. https://doi.org/10.1145/349524...

    work page doi:10.1145/3495243.3558250 2022

  70. [70]

    They don’t always think about that

    Susanne Kirchner, Jessica Schroeder, James Fogarty, and Sean A. Munson. 2021. “They don’t always think about that”: Translational Needs in the Design of Personal Health Informatics Applications. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Yokohama, Japan)(CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3411764.3445587 2021

  71. [71]

    Predrag Klasnja, Sunny Consolvo, and Wanda Pratt. 2011. How to Evaluate Technologies for Health Behavior Change in HCI Research. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3063–3072. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979396

    work page doi:10.1145/1978942.1979396 2011

  72. [72]

    Masson, Tia Gao, Walt Destler, Leo Selavo, and Richard P

    Jeonggil Ko, Jong Hyun Lim, Yin Chen, Rvăzvan Musvaloiu-E, Andreas Terzis, Gerald M. Masson, Tia Gao, Walt Destler, Leo Selavo, and Richard P. Dutton. 2010. MEDiSN: Medical emergency detection in sensor networks.ACM Trans. Embed. Comput. Syst.10, 1, Article 11 (Aug. 2010), 29 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/1814539.1814550

    work page doi:10.1145/1814539.1814550 2010

  73. [73]

    Gary L. Kreps. 2017. The Relevance of Health Literacy to mHealth.Information Services & Use37, 2 (Jan. 2017), 123–130. https: //doi.org/10.3233/ISU-170828

    work page doi:10.3233/isu-170828 2017

  74. [74]

    Mohr, and Madhu Reddy

    Kaylee Payne Kruzan, Ada Ng, Colleen Stiles-Shields, Emily G Lattie, David C. Mohr, and Madhu Reddy. 2023. The Perceived Utility of Smartphone and Wearable Sensor Data in Digital Self-tracking Technologies for Mental Health. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New Y...

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548.3581209 2023

  75. [75]

    Maiju Kyytsönen, Tuulikki Vehko, Heidi Anttila, and Jonna Ikonen. 2023. Factors Associated with Use of Wearable Technology to Support Activity, Well-Being, or a Healthy Lifestyle in the Adult Population and among Older Adults.PLOS Digital Health2, 5 (May 2023), e0000245. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000245

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000245 2023

  76. [76]

    Amanda Lazar, Christian Koehler, Theresa Jean Tanenbaum, and David H. Nguyen. 2015. Why We Use and Abandon Smart Devices. InProceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 635–646. https://doi.org/10.1145/2750858.2804288

    work page doi:10.1145/2750858.2804288 2015

  77. [77]

    Ha Le, Rithika Lakshminarayanan, Jixin Li, Varun Mishra, and Stephen Intille. 2024. Collecting Self-reported Physical Activity and Posture Data Using Audio-based Ecological Momentary Assessment.Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.8, 3, Article 111 (Sept. 2024), 35 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3678584

    work page doi:10.1145/3678584 2024

  78. [78]

    Hyunsoo Lee, Yugyeong Jung, Hei Yiu Law, Seolyeong Bae, and Uichin Lee. 2024. PriviAware: Exploring Data Visualization and Dynamic Privacy Control Support for Data Collection in Mobile Sensing Research. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York,...

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642815 2024

  79. [79]

    Hyunsoo Lee, Yugyeong Jung, Youwon Shin, Hyesoo Park, Woohyeok Choi, and Uichin Lee. 2024. FamilyScope: Visualizing Affective Aspects of Family Social Interactions Using Passive Sensor Data.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.8, CSCW1 (April 2024), 57:1–57:27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3637334

    work page doi:10.1145/3637334 2024

  80. [81]

    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. https://doi.org/10.1145/3659585

    work page doi:10.1145/3659585 2024

Showing first 80 references.