Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Emma Elizabeth McGinty
dblp:399/3330
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2026
0009-0003-5095-9308ORCID · reported
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 2 · 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 · 68% Human-AI interaction · 32% | |
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper |
Medical and health informatics · 100% |
Topics — the 4 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Health and well-being technologies › digital well-being
mental well-being support |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Framing Responsible Design of AI for Mental Well-Being: AI as Primary Care, Nutritional Supplement, or Yoga Instructor? · CHI 2026 |
Human-AI interaction › responsible AI
responsible AI design |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Framing Responsible Design of AI for Mental Well-Being: AI as Primary Care, Nutritional Supplement, or Yoga Instructor? · CHI 2026 |
Health and well-being technologies › mental health
mental healthcare |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Designing Technologies for Value-based Mental Healthcare: Centering Clinicians' Perspectives on Outcomes Data Specification, Collection, and Use · CHI 2025 |
Health and well-being technologies
mental health |
0.3 | 1 | 2026 | Framing Responsible Design of AI for Mental Well-Being: AI as Primary Care, Nutritional Supplement, or Yoga Instructor? · CHI 2026 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
interview study · 1.7regulatory analysis · 1.0expert interviews · 1.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | Framing Responsible Design of AI for Mental Well-Being: AI as Primary Care, Nutritional Supplement, or Yoga Instructor?abstractMillions of people now use non-clinical Large Language Model (LLM) tools like ChatGPT for mental well-being support. This paper investigates what it means to design such tools responsibly, and how to operationalize that responsibility in their design and evaluation. By interviewing experts and analyzing related regulations, we found that designing an LLM tool responsibly involves: (1) Articulating the specific benefits it guarantees and for whom. Does it guarantee specific, proven relief, like an over-the-counter drug, or offer minimal guarantees, like a nutritional supplement? (2) Specifying the LLM tool’s “active ingredients” for improving well-being and whether it guarantees their effective delivery (like a primary care provider) or not (like a yoga instructor). These specifications outline an LLM tool’s pertinent risks, appropriate evaluation metrics, and the respective responsibilities of LLM developers, tool designers, and users. These analogies—LLM tools as supplements, drugs, yoga instructors, and primary care providers—can scaffold further conversations about their responsible design. Ned Cooper, Jose A. Guridi, Angel Hwang, Beth Kolko, Emma Elizabeth McGinty, Qian Yang 0004 |
CHI | 5 |
| 2025 | Designing Technologies for Value-based Mental Healthcare: Centering Clinicians' Perspectives on Outcomes Data Specification, Collection, and UseabstractHealth information technologies are transforming how mental healthcare is paid for through value-based care programs, which tie payment to data quantifying care outcomes. But, it is unclear what outcomes data these technologies should store, how to engage users in data collection, and how outcomes data can improve care. Given these challenges, we conducted interviews with 30 U.S.-based mental health clinicians to explore the design space of health information technologies that support outcomes data specification, collection, and use in value-based mental healthcare. Our findings center clinicians' perspectives on aligning outcomes data for payment programs and care; opportunities for health technologies and personal devices to improve data collection; and considerations for using outcomes data to hold stakeholders including clinicians, health insurers, and social services financially accountable in value-based mental healthcare. We conclude with implications for future research designing and developing technologies supporting value-based care across stakeholders involved with mental health service delivery. Daniel A. Adler, Yuewen Yang, Thalia Viranda, Anna R. Van Meter, Emma Elizabeth McGinty, Tanzeem Choudhury |
CHI | 5 |