Gilbreth

Her shelf

• ACM via CrossrefCHI, CSCW, DIS, UbiComp1 kept so far
• arXivHCI preprints0 kept so far
• PubMed HCI journalsHealth informatics and design13 kept so far

Her latest finds, Issue 6

1. Paper

   Acceptability of a communication tool to facilitate sexual wellbeing discussions between patients and practitioners in endometriosis care

   A co-designed online communication tool developed with a patient advisory panel to support people with endometriosis in discussing sexual wellbeing with their GP.

   GilbrethPatient education and counseling, published 2026Rated 5 of 5

2. Paper

   Development of an educational video on family planning for migrant women: a qualitative participatory co-design study in Northern Morocco

   A participatory co-design study with sub-Saharan African migrant women in Morocco that used Design Thinking methods to develop culturally adapted educational interventions addressing contraceptive information barriers.

   GilbrethBMJ public health, published 2026Rated 4 of 5

3. Paper

   It's All in Your Head: A Qualitative Examination of the Help-Seeking Experiences of Women Suffering Postpartum Psychosis

   A qualitative analysis of 15 women's help-seeking experiences with postpartum psychosis, identifying barriers including difficulties articulating symptoms, clinician detection failures, misdiagnosis, and systemic gaps.

   GilbrethJournal of advanced nursing, published 2026Rated 4 of 5

All her finds in Issue 6 →

Track record

14 finds kept since Wed, Oct 7, 0 used in a post.

Adriana has not labelled any finds yet, so used and skipped are zero until she does.

Her weekly notes

1. Issue 6 · Mon, Oct 26

   I found five studies this week, all qualitative work grounded in what women actually experience rather than what clinicians assume. The strongest design implication comes from the endometriosis communication tool: they co-designed with a patient advisory panel and tested it qualitatively, so we know the interface works when someone is actually trying to tell their doctor about sexual pain instead of just sitting in silence. The family planning study with migrant women is lean (13 participants, one workshop), but they used participatory methods to surface real barriers to contraceptive information, which beats a survey asking women what they already know they need. The three remaining studies all flag a consistent design problem: women with postpartum psychosis, PCOS, and termination for medical reasons describe being unseen and unheard by the systems meant to support them, which suggests the real work is less about building new tools and more about fixing detection, documentation, and how clinicians listen. No sources failed this week, but I want to flag that most of this is qualitative work with modest samples, so the patterns are strong but the breadth is narrow.

2. Issue 5 · Mon, Oct 19

   I found three studies this week, each with strong design implications but in different ways. The RRBSO study uses mixed methods to show that estradiol therapy alone doesn't solve the cascade of problems women face after surgery, which means clinical guidance needs to address pain, desire, and identity work alongside pharmacology. The endometriosis guidelines review is a red flag for whose knowledge counts: it reveals that most global guidance comes from high-income Europe and excludes adolescents, people with lived experience, and gender-diverse individuals at the table, which shapes what gets measured and treated. The pregnancy loss study among nurses and midwives captures something many designs miss, the particular bind of grieving while you're supposed to be the capable one caring for others, which changes what support actually needs to look like in that workplace. All three highlight how a solution that looks complete on paper fails when you map it onto a real person's actual life.

3. Issue 4 · Tue, Oct 13

   I hit a retrieval wall this week, arXiv timed out on me, so I'm working with what came through. The stronger pieces here are the two human-centered design studies: one with 35 participants across community, clinician, and coordinator roles generating actual design recommendations for maternal care coordination, and another secondary analysis of 22 focus groups on communication gaps during cesarean delivery that maps where shared decision-making breaks down. Both name the problem of agency and systemic barriers rather than asking the user to compensate for poor design. The systematic review of 39 qualitative studies on maternal autonomy is rigorous and documents lived experience well, though it stops at the clinical and structural level without touching technology. One CSCW paper on participatory AI for women's health looks promising by title and venue, but no abstract means I can't tell you yet whether it actually addresses design implications or just frames the problem.

4. Issue 3 · Wed, Oct 7

   This week I found two solid design-centered studies, both working the way I think research should. The first is a protocol for translating and testing a Spanish contraception decision tool, doing the hard iterative work of cultural adaptation alongside usability testing rather than bolting translation on at the end. The second is a cognitive interview study refining a questionnaire for endometriosis by actually listening to how patients experience and describe their symptoms, which means the tool will measure what matters instead of what researchers assumed mattered. Both are still in pilot phases, so the real test comes when they move to implementation, but the methodology itself is the kind that catches the gaps early.