Bee-Ah Kang, Manvi Poddar, Aditi Luitel, Rajiv N Rimal, Biruk Melaku, Danielle Piccinini Black
{"title":"中低收入国家公共卫生干预中以人为本设计的叙述性回顾:对实践、研究和报告的建议","authors":"Bee-Ah Kang, Manvi Poddar, Aditi Luitel, Rajiv N Rimal, Biruk Melaku, Danielle Piccinini Black","doi":"10.9745/GHSP-D-24-00164","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The application of human-centered design (HCD) is growing in global health, given its potential to generate innovative solutions to entrenched health problems by prioritizing human perspectives, needs, and desires. To address gaps in consolidated evidence on prior programs, we conducted a review of studies that applied a comprehensive HCD approach in low- and middle-income countries. A total of 535 articles were initially identified. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 22 articles were included. Most studies were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa and used qualitative or mixed methods throughout the HCD work. In the \"discover and define\" phase, user personas, journey maps, and interviews were commonly used to empathize with end users and key stakeholders. Studies used various strategies in the \"ideation\" phase, including idea generation based on feasibility and resource constraints. In the \"testing\" phase, low-fidelity prototypes were tested to obtain feedback from end users and stakeholders, enabling quick and cost-effective refinements. Prototype iterations occurred twice in most studies, but information about when iterations ceased was limited. Evaluations of design outcomes and health impacts were lacking. Studies cited multidisciplinary approaches, flexible methodology, and a sense of ownership among users and communities as strengths of HCD. Contrastingly, challenges in consistent participant engagement and limited scientific rigor were reported as weaknesses. Elements that enhanced program reporting included clear descriptions of HCD as cyclical, stakeholder maps (empathy tools), visual materials on design activities and prototypes, and transparency in failures. We recommend strengthening capacity among those applying HCD to optimize the effectiveness of the approach for global health. Although HCD is not inherently intended to serve as a rigorous research method, data triangulation and proper evaluations may ensure its usability as evidence in health research when appropriate. Also, a thorough reporting of design phases and providing detailed rationale behind design decisions can advance future HCD literature.</p>","PeriodicalId":12692,"journal":{"name":"Global Health: Science and Practice","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12352946/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Narrative Review of Human-Centered Design in Public Health Interventions in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Recommendations for Practice, Research, and Reporting.\",\"authors\":\"Bee-Ah Kang, Manvi Poddar, Aditi Luitel, Rajiv N Rimal, Biruk Melaku, Danielle Piccinini Black\",\"doi\":\"10.9745/GHSP-D-24-00164\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The application of human-centered design (HCD) is growing in global health, given its potential to generate innovative solutions to entrenched health problems by prioritizing human perspectives, needs, and desires. To address gaps in consolidated evidence on prior programs, we conducted a review of studies that applied a comprehensive HCD approach in low- and middle-income countries. A total of 535 articles were initially identified. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 22 articles were included. Most studies were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa and used qualitative or mixed methods throughout the HCD work. In the \\\"discover and define\\\" phase, user personas, journey maps, and interviews were commonly used to empathize with end users and key stakeholders. Studies used various strategies in the \\\"ideation\\\" phase, including idea generation based on feasibility and resource constraints. In the \\\"testing\\\" phase, low-fidelity prototypes were tested to obtain feedback from end users and stakeholders, enabling quick and cost-effective refinements. Prototype iterations occurred twice in most studies, but information about when iterations ceased was limited. Evaluations of design outcomes and health impacts were lacking. Studies cited multidisciplinary approaches, flexible methodology, and a sense of ownership among users and communities as strengths of HCD. Contrastingly, challenges in consistent participant engagement and limited scientific rigor were reported as weaknesses. Elements that enhanced program reporting included clear descriptions of HCD as cyclical, stakeholder maps (empathy tools), visual materials on design activities and prototypes, and transparency in failures. We recommend strengthening capacity among those applying HCD to optimize the effectiveness of the approach for global health. Although HCD is not inherently intended to serve as a rigorous research method, data triangulation and proper evaluations may ensure its usability as evidence in health research when appropriate. Also, a thorough reporting of design phases and providing detailed rationale behind design decisions can advance future HCD literature.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12692,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Health: Science and Practice\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12352946/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Health: Science and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-24-00164\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Health: Science and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-24-00164","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Narrative Review of Human-Centered Design in Public Health Interventions in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Recommendations for Practice, Research, and Reporting.
The application of human-centered design (HCD) is growing in global health, given its potential to generate innovative solutions to entrenched health problems by prioritizing human perspectives, needs, and desires. To address gaps in consolidated evidence on prior programs, we conducted a review of studies that applied a comprehensive HCD approach in low- and middle-income countries. A total of 535 articles were initially identified. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 22 articles were included. Most studies were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa and used qualitative or mixed methods throughout the HCD work. In the "discover and define" phase, user personas, journey maps, and interviews were commonly used to empathize with end users and key stakeholders. Studies used various strategies in the "ideation" phase, including idea generation based on feasibility and resource constraints. In the "testing" phase, low-fidelity prototypes were tested to obtain feedback from end users and stakeholders, enabling quick and cost-effective refinements. Prototype iterations occurred twice in most studies, but information about when iterations ceased was limited. Evaluations of design outcomes and health impacts were lacking. Studies cited multidisciplinary approaches, flexible methodology, and a sense of ownership among users and communities as strengths of HCD. Contrastingly, challenges in consistent participant engagement and limited scientific rigor were reported as weaknesses. Elements that enhanced program reporting included clear descriptions of HCD as cyclical, stakeholder maps (empathy tools), visual materials on design activities and prototypes, and transparency in failures. We recommend strengthening capacity among those applying HCD to optimize the effectiveness of the approach for global health. Although HCD is not inherently intended to serve as a rigorous research method, data triangulation and proper evaluations may ensure its usability as evidence in health research when appropriate. Also, a thorough reporting of design phases and providing detailed rationale behind design decisions can advance future HCD literature.
期刊介绍:
Global Health: Science and Practice (GHSP) is a no-fee, open-access, peer-reviewed, online journal aimed to improve health practice, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Our goal is to reach those who design, implement, manage, evaluate, and otherwise support health programs. We are especially interested in advancing knowledge on practical program implementation issues, with information on what programs entail and how they are implemented. GHSP is currently indexed in PubMed, PubMed Central, POPLINE, EBSCO, SCOPUS,. the Web of Science Emerging Sources Citation Index, and the USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC).
TOPICS:
Issued four times a year, GHSP will include articles on all global health topics, covering diverse programming models and a wide range of cross-cutting issues that impact and support health systems. Examples include but are not limited to:
Health:
Addiction and harm reduction,
Child Health,
Communicable and Emerging Diseases,
Disaster Preparedness and Response,
Environmental Health,
Family Planning/Reproductive Health,
HIV/AIDS,
Malaria,
Maternal Health,
Neglected Tropical Diseases,
Non-Communicable Diseases/Injuries,
Nutrition,
Tuberculosis,
Water and Sanitation.
Cross-Cutting Issues:
Epidemiology,
Gender,
Health Communication/Healthy Behavior,
Health Policy and Advocacy,
Health Systems,
Human Resources/Training,
Knowledge Management,
Logistics and Supply Chain Management,
Management and Governance,
mHealth/eHealth/digital health,
Monitoring and Evaluation,
Scale Up,
Youth.