Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Peter Glick

dblp:319/3464 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
2as first author
2since 2021 · last 2023
0000-0003-3879-8129ORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 2 · 2 first-author · 2 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
2 papers
Health and well-being technologies · 44% Collaborative and social computing · 33% Design research and methods · 23%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Design research and methods
participatory design
0.712023
MyCareBudget: Co-creating a Healthcare Digital Commons with and for Disabled Citizens and their Unpaid Carers · CHI 2023
Collaborative and social computing › social support
peer support
0.612022
Exploring Experiences of Self-Directed Care Budgets: Design Implications for Socio-Technical Interventions · CHI 2022
Collaborative and social computing
peer production
0.212023
MyCareBudget: Co-creating a Healthcare Digital Commons with and for Disabled Citizens and their Unpaid Carers · CHI 2023
Collaborative and social computing › care work
informal caregiving
0.212022
Exploring Experiences of Self-Directed Care Budgets: Design Implications for Socio-Technical Interventions · CHI 2022

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

remote engagement · 0.7participatory design · 0.7qualitative study · 0.6interviews · 0.6focus groups · 0.6
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2023 MyCareBudget: Co-creating a Healthcare Digital Commons with and for Disabled Citizens and their Unpaid Carers
abstract
Supporting disabled populations and their unpaid carers through designing sustainable healthcare interventions and infrastructures, is an important, yet challenging, area in HCI research. We report on a collaboration with 23 disabled citizens, unpaid carers, and a care organisation, wishing to co-develop digital responses to challenges they face in the management of self-directed care budgets. We describe how leveraging participatory methods, including asynchronous and remote engagements, enabled the co-creation of a sustainable digital common-pool resource, used by over 5,000 people worldwide. This study contributes novel configurations of methods and tools for co-design with ‘seldom heard’ populations. Demonstrating how these enabled the collective articulation of what constitutes trust, governance, and responsibility, in the design of a digital commons, “MyCareBudget”, offering peer-produced care documents for use by disabled citizens and their unpaid carers. We discuss implications for HCI interested in co-designing sustainable socio-technical interventions with underserved and marginalised populations, in healthcare settings.
Peter Glick, Clara Crivellaro
CHI1
2022 Exploring Experiences of Self-Directed Care Budgets: Design Implications for Socio-Technical Interventions
abstract
The role of HCI in informal caregivers’ lives has been a focus of research for some time. Yet to gain significance in HCI, are the implications of healthcare systems’ transformation into a personalised care paradigm, where citizens gain choice and control over the delivery of their care. We provide a first HCI paper to examine self-directed care budgets for disabled citizens, where care funding is controlled by the individual. We explore how digital technology can assist citizens, promoting peer support to create meaningful, personalised healthcare infrastructures. This qualitative study contributes insights from interviews and focus groups with 24 disabled citizens, informal caregivers and healthcare officers, to provide understanding of their experiences and practices. These insights highlight relational care, invisible labour, power struggles with authorities and how citizens seek socio-technical capability. We contribute design implications for self-directed care budgets and HCI research concerned with developing technologies that support this population.
Peter Glick, Rachel Clarke 0001, Clara Crivellaro
CHI1