Cited by 57Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDigital Mental Health InterventionsInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

mHealth for Maternal Mental Health: Everyday Wisdom in Ethical Design

Open access
Barry, Marguerite, Doherty, Kevin, Marcano Belisario, Jose, Car, Josip, Morrison, Cecily, Doherty, Gavin·2017·Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Abstract

Health and wellbeing applications increasingly raise ethical issues for design. User-centred and participatory design approaches, while grounded in everyday wisdom, cannot be expected to address ethical reflection consistently, as multiple value systems come into play. We explore the potential of phronesis, a concept from Aristotelian virtue ethics, for mHealth design. Phronesis describes wisdom and judgment garnered from practical experience of specific situations in context. Applied phronesis contributes everyday wisdom to challenging issues for vulnerable target users. Drawing on research into mHealth technologies for psychological wellbeing, we explore how phronesis can inform ethical design. Using a case study on an app for self-reporting symptoms of depression during pregnancy, we present a framework for incorporating a phronetic approach into design, involving: (a) a wide feedback net to capture phronetic input early in design; (b) observing the order of feedback, which directly affects value priorities in design; (c) ethical pluralism recognising different coexisting value systems; (d) acknowledging subjectivity in the disclosure and recognition of individual researcher and participant values. We offer insights into how a phronetic approach can contribute everyday wisdom to designing mHealth technologies to help designers foster the values that promote human flourishing.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3025453.3025918

Cites

79 of 79 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Stigma attached to mental health, limitations imposed by medical aid, and a genuine need for privacy, security, and trust from possible users could be reasons why maternal mental health is not experiencing similar growth as other digital MCH initiatives.

    “However, Blandford et al [103] highlighted the important fact that we need to consider that the stigma still attached to mental health; the limitations imposed by medical aid (for those who have it); and a genuine need for privacy, security, and trust from the possible users of such apps could all be reasons why this area of MCH is not experiencing similar growth as compared with other digital MCH”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Barry, M (2014) Please do touch: Discourses on aesthetic interactivity in the exhibition space. Participations Vol.11 (1)
  2. Ess, C. (2013) Digital Media Ethics 2nd Edition, Cambridge: Polity.
  3. Goffman, E. (1981) Forms of Talk, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 38.
  4. Howarth, D. (2000) Discourse Open University Press
  5. Kientz, J, Arriaga, RI, Abowd, GD (2009) Baby steps: evaluation of a system to support record-keeping for parents of young children, Proceedings of CHI 2009, ACM
  6. Matthews, M., Doherty, G (2009) The Invisible User, Interactions, Nov 2009, ACM
  7. Matthews, M., Doherty, G. (2011) In the mood: engaging teenagers in psychotherapy using mobile phones. Proceedings of CHI 2011, 2947-2956.
  8. Wierckx, A., Shahid, S., Al Mahmud, A. (2014). Babywijzer: an application to support women during their pregnancy. In CHI '14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '14). ACM

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Barry, M., Doherty, K., Marcano Belisario, J., Car, J., Morrison, C., & Doherty, G.
Affiliations
  • Trinity College Dublin (IE)
  • Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
  • Imperial College London (GB)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2017-05-02
Pages
2708-2756
OpenAlex
W2611667142
Cited by
57
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1
FWCI
41.18
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
  • Surrey Research Insight Open Access (The University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Science Foundation Ireland (Grant 12/CE/I2267)
  • National Institute for Health Research (Imperial Biomedical Research Centre)
  • Irish Research Council (Government of Ireland Postdoctoral Award)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
mobile health, maternal mental health, practical wisdom, Aristotelian virtue ethics, ethical design, moral pluralism, user-centered design, participatory design, pregnancy, eudaimonia, researcher values, value priorities

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review