我不希望我的心理健康应用给我设置心理健康障碍：拆解盲人群体对数字心理健康追踪服务的需求
"I Don't Want My Mental Health App To Give Me Mental Health Barriers": Unpacking The Need For Digital Mental Health Tracking Services With And For The Blind Community
浏览论文内容
中文总结 AI 辅助
该研究针对美国盲用户开展混合方法研究，发现DMH追踪服务因默认面向视力正常用户而排斥盲用户，据此提出从设计初期就纳入盲用户的可访问性相关设计建议。
中文摘要 AI 辅助
数字心理健康（DMH）追踪服务承诺为用户的福祉提供持续、个性化的支持，但其设计通常默认面向视力正常的用户。对于盲人群体而言，这种假设会产生独特的排斥模式：部分服务需付费后才能评估其可访问性，社区功能将其声称要支持的用户排除在外，界面让具备数字素养的用户在功能上受阻。我们报告了一项针对美国盲用户使用DMH追踪服务体验的解释性序贯混合方法研究。第一阶段，93名法定失明成年人完成了关于其使用模式、采用决策和数据自主权偏好的调查；第二阶段，10名调查参与者接受了半结构化访谈。我们使用描述性统计和Kruskal-Wallis检验分析封闭式回答，使用归纳主题分析分析开放式回答和访谈数据，并通过Norman和Skinner的电子健康素养框架解读研究结果。参与者指出，正念、睡眠和目标追踪服务是他们使用最多的类别，但也提到自己反复被其他用户最看重的社区支持功能排除在外。我们认为，该框架的“计算机素养”维度本身并不足够：许多参与者具备相关素养，但因早于用户的设计选择而无法应用。我们提出了透明的预付费可访问性评估、原生可访问而非后加的界面、用户可控的数据自主权等设计建议，这些建议旨在不是适配盲用户，而是从一开始就与他们共同设计DMH追踪服务。
英文摘要
Digital mental health (DMH) tracking services promise continuous, personalized support for well-being, but their design often assumes sighted users. For the blind community, this assumption produces a distinct pattern of exclusion: services whose accessibility cannot be evaluated without first paying for them, community features that exclude the users they purport to support, and interfaces that leave users digitally literate but functionally blocked. We report on an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study of blind users' experiences with DMH tracking services in the United States. In the first phase, 93 legally blind adults completed a survey about their usage patterns, adoption decisions, and data-agency preferences; in the second, 10 survey respondents participated in semi-structured interviews. We analyzed closed-ended responses using descriptive statistics and the Kruskal-Wallis test, and open-ended and interview data using inductive thematic analysis, interpreting findings through Norman and Skinner's eHealth Literacy framework. Participants identified mindfulness, sleep, and goal-tracking services as their most-used categories, but also described recurring exclusion from the community-support features that other users value most. We argue that the framework's "computer literacy" dimension is insufficient on its own: many of our participants possessed the literacy but were blocked from applying it by design choices that predate the user. We contribute design recommendations for transparent pre-purchase accessibility evaluation, accessibility-native rather than retrofitted interfaces, and user-controlled data agency -- recommendations intended not to accommodate blind users but to design DMH tracking services with them from the start.
