The future of care work: towards a radical politics of care in CSCW research and practice

Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) and Human- Computer Interaction (HCI) have long studied how technology can support material and relational aspects of care work, typically in clinical healthcare settings. More recently, we see increasing recognition of care work such as informal healthcare provision, child and elderly care, organizing and advocacy, domestic work, and service work. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has underscored long-present tensions between the deep necessity and simultaneous devaluation of our care infrastructures. This highlights the need to attend to the broader social, political, and economic systems that shape care work and the emerging technologies being used in care work. This leads us to ask several critical questions: What counts as care work and why? How is care work (de)valued, (un)supported, or coerced under capitalism and to what end? What narratives drive the push for technology in care work and whom does it benefit? How does care work resist or build resilience against and within oppressive systems? And how can we as researchers advocate for and with care and caregivers? In this one-day workshop, we will bring together researchers from academia, industry, and community-based organizations to reflect on these questions and extend conversations on the future of technology for care work

Qualitative codebook.

Several professional organizations recommend conducting genetic testing as part of the autism diagnosis process, as it can provide additional information and benefits for autistic people and their families. However, there is disagreement among autism communities about whether genetic testing reflects autistic people’s best interests. In practice, rates of clinical genetic testing for autism are much lower than diagnoses, creating a large gap between clinical guidelines and real clinical encounters. To investigate one potential source of this gap, we interviewed 14 healthcare providers about the autism diagnostic process and their actions related to autism genetic testing. We recruited a sample of primarily Ph.D. level-psychologists and analyzed our qualitative data using a five-step framework analysis method. Participants generally had positive or mixed views of genetic testing in autism. They described their current experiences of implementation of genetic testing, including that they did not often find it changed their clinical practice. Only some providers recommended it to everyone receiving an autism diagnosis. They also listed factors which discourage families from getting testing, including high costs, families feeling overwhelmed, other support needs taking priority, and ethical implications. Notably, providers highlighted a trend of referring patients to research genetic testing rather than clinical testing, which may provide a cheaper and easier alternative but is not likely to return results to participants. Finally, participants felt they needed more training in genetics and listed specific topics of uncertainty. Our research highlights a need to further educate clinicians in the uses and limitations of genetic testing for autism and suggests content areas of focus for genetics educators.</div

Uses of genetic testing.

Several professional organizations recommend conducting genetic testing as part of the autism diagnosis process, as it can provide additional information and benefits for autistic people and their families. However, there is disagreement among autism communities about whether genetic testing reflects autistic people’s best interests. In practice, rates of clinical genetic testing for autism are much lower than diagnoses, creating a large gap between clinical guidelines and real clinical encounters. To investigate one potential source of this gap, we interviewed 14 healthcare providers about the autism diagnostic process and their actions related to autism genetic testing. We recruited a sample of primarily Ph.D. level-psychologists and analyzed our qualitative data using a five-step framework analysis method. Participants generally had positive or mixed views of genetic testing in autism. They described their current experiences of implementation of genetic testing, including that they did not often find it changed their clinical practice. Only some providers recommended it to everyone receiving an autism diagnosis. They also listed factors which discourage families from getting testing, including high costs, families feeling overwhelmed, other support needs taking priority, and ethical implications. Notably, providers highlighted a trend of referring patients to research genetic testing rather than clinical testing, which may provide a cheaper and easier alternative but is not likely to return results to participants. Finally, participants felt they needed more training in genetics and listed specific topics of uncertainty. Our research highlights a need to further educate clinicians in the uses and limitations of genetic testing for autism and suggests content areas of focus for genetics educators.</div

Genetics topics healthcare providers wish to learn about.

Genetics topics healthcare providers wish to learn about.</p

Interview guide.

Several professional organizations recommend conducting genetic testing as part of the autism diagnosis process, as it can provide additional information and benefits for autistic people and their families. However, there is disagreement among autism communities about whether genetic testing reflects autistic people’s best interests. In practice, rates of clinical genetic testing for autism are much lower than diagnoses, creating a large gap between clinical guidelines and real clinical encounters. To investigate one potential source of this gap, we interviewed 14 healthcare providers about the autism diagnostic process and their actions related to autism genetic testing. We recruited a sample of primarily Ph.D. level-psychologists and analyzed our qualitative data using a five-step framework analysis method. Participants generally had positive or mixed views of genetic testing in autism. They described their current experiences of implementation of genetic testing, including that they did not often find it changed their clinical practice. Only some providers recommended it to everyone receiving an autism diagnosis. They also listed factors which discourage families from getting testing, including high costs, families feeling overwhelmed, other support needs taking priority, and ethical implications. Notably, providers highlighted a trend of referring patients to research genetic testing rather than clinical testing, which may provide a cheaper and easier alternative but is not likely to return results to participants. Finally, participants felt they needed more training in genetics and listed specific topics of uncertainty. Our research highlights a need to further educate clinicians in the uses and limitations of genetic testing for autism and suggests content areas of focus for genetics educators.</div

Participant demographics (N = 14).

Several professional organizations recommend conducting genetic testing as part of the autism diagnosis process, as it can provide additional information and benefits for autistic people and their families. However, there is disagreement among autism communities about whether genetic testing reflects autistic people’s best interests. In practice, rates of clinical genetic testing for autism are much lower than diagnoses, creating a large gap between clinical guidelines and real clinical encounters. To investigate one potential source of this gap, we interviewed 14 healthcare providers about the autism diagnostic process and their actions related to autism genetic testing. We recruited a sample of primarily Ph.D. level-psychologists and analyzed our qualitative data using a five-step framework analysis method. Participants generally had positive or mixed views of genetic testing in autism. They described their current experiences of implementation of genetic testing, including that they did not often find it changed their clinical practice. Only some providers recommended it to everyone receiving an autism diagnosis. They also listed factors which discourage families from getting testing, including high costs, families feeling overwhelmed, other support needs taking priority, and ethical implications. Notably, providers highlighted a trend of referring patients to research genetic testing rather than clinical testing, which may provide a cheaper and easier alternative but is not likely to return results to participants. Finally, participants felt they needed more training in genetics and listed specific topics of uncertainty. Our research highlights a need to further educate clinicians in the uses and limitations of genetic testing for autism and suggests content areas of focus for genetics educators.</div

Factors contributing to low genetic testing uptake.

Factors contributing to low genetic testing uptake.</p