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

Aoife Mullally

dblp:433/2376 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2026
0009-0008-8229-5952ORCID · reported

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

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 1 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
1 paper
Health and well-being technologies · 67% Design research and methods · 33%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Design research and methods
design ethics
1.012026
Technology in Abortion Care: a Scoping Review on Contexts of Use, Research Methods, Ethical Considerations and Impact · CHI 2026
Health and well-being technologies › women's health
reproductive health technology
1.012026
Technology in Abortion Care: a Scoping Review on Contexts of Use, Research Methods, Ethical Considerations and Impact · CHI 2026

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

scoping review · 1.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 Technology in Abortion Care: a Scoping Review on Contexts of Use, Research Methods, Ethical Considerations and Impact
abstract
Globally, about 40% of women and people assigned female at birth live under laws that restrict or prohibit access to safe abortion care. Even where abortion is legal, socio-cultural stigma and health inequities hinder timely, equitable access. Technologies have been developed to support abortion seekers and providers in overcoming barriers to information, safe abortion care, and support. However, research on abortion care technologies is fragmented, spanning medical and computing publications, and lacking a consolidated understanding. To address this gap, we conducted a scoping review of 92 studies, examining technological applications, contexts of use, research methods, ethical considerations, and pathways to impact. This analysis informs the HCI research agenda for abortion care, highlighting future directions, and fostering reflection on design, ethics, and meaningful impact. We call on HCI researchers to move beyond telemedicine and U.S.-centric perspectives, re-politicize abortion care technologies, and consider temporality in delivering timely abortion care amid broader sociopolitical constraints.
Camille Nadal, Sarah Foley, Katie A. Siek, Kellie Morrissey, Aoife Mullally
CHI5