Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34423336›Full record

ArticleExtended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. CHI Conference2021

Designing

Shaan Chopra, Alisha Pradhan, Emma Dixon, Mary L Radnofsky, Kausalya Ganesh, Amanda Lazar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. CHI Conference, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Thermally Actuated Soft Robotics.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Shaan ChopraCollege of Information Studies, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, U.S.
Alisha PradhanCollege of Information Studies, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, U.S.
Emma DixonCollege of Information Studies, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, U.S.
Mary L RadnofskyAdvocate for the Human Rights of People with Dementia, Alexandria, VA, U.S.
Kausalya GaneshCollege of Information Studies, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, U.S.
Amanda LazarCollege of Information Studies, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, U.S.

Funding

ACL HHS 90REGE0008
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

User-centered design is typically framed around meeting the preferences and needs of populations involved in the design process. However, when designing technology for people with disabilities, in particular dementia, there is also a moral imperative to ensure that human rights of this segment of the population are consciously integrated into the process and respectfully included in the product. We introduce a human rights-based user-centered design process which is informed by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). We conducted two editions of a three-day-long design workshop during which undergraduate students and dementia advocates came together to design technology for people with dementia. This case study demonstrates our novel approach to user-centered design that centers human rights through different stages of the workshop and actively involves people with dementia in the design process.

Indexed as

CRPDDementiaHeuristicsHuman RightsUser-Centered Design

Identifiers

PMID34423336
PMCPMC8375512

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.