Skip to content
Implementation Science at UW

Keywords: Human-Centered Design

✪ Rigorous projects and grants integrating human-centered design and implementation science: 8 tips for success

Authors:

Tricia Aung, Katie P. Osterhage, Andrea K. Graham, Enola K. Proctor, Aaron R. Lyon & Sean A. Munson

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: July 2026

Read the full text in the open access journal Implementation Science Communications

Abstract:

Background

Researchers and funders increasingly see potential for integrating human-centered design (HCD) and implementation science (IS) approaches to enhance the design and uptake of health interventions and implementation strategies. These approaches offer complementary strengths. HCD prioritizes developing compelling, intuitive, and adoptable innovations grounded in user and contextual needs; IS focuses on ensuring evidence-based practices reach and work for their intended populations. Integrating HCD and IS creates challenges that existing IS proposal writing guidelines do not address. HCD’s inherent uncertainty–since final designs are developed through iteration rather than pre-determined–can unsettle researchers and funders accustomed to more defined endpoints. Variation in how HCD is understood adds further difficulty when collaborating across disciplines or communicating with funders. There are currently no published recommendations to help researchers design strong studies integrating HCD and IS and communicate them effectively to funders.

Discussion

We present tips to support both rigorous study design and effective proposal writing that integrate HCD and IS. This draws from our experiences leading, supporting, and reviewing both funded and unfunded projects. Our considerations are informed primarily by experiences with teams in the United States in the mental health and behavioral health domains; however, we have found our findings also apply to projects globally and in other health sectors. Our intent is that this guide will advance good research that leverages both approaches and is viable for funding. We also hope that the tips will support funders in developing solicitations and evaluating proposals.

Conclusion

There is untapped potential for innovative health research integrating HCD and IS, but realizing it requires both rigorous study design and an ability to attract funding. We offer practice guidance to help researchers and funders develop quality projects and proposals, and we encourage others to build on these recommendations.

**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**

✪ Integration of a Digital Health Intervention Into Immunization Clinic Workflows in Kenya: Qualitative, Realist Evaluation of Technology Usability

Authors:

Samantha B Dolan, Rachel Wittenauer, Jessica C Shearer, Anne Njoroge, Penina Onyango, George Owisom, William B Lober, Shan Liu, Nancy Puttkammer, & Peter Rabinowitz

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: March 2023

Read the full text in the open access journal JMIR Formative Research

Abstract:

Background

In an effort to increase vaccination coverage in low-resource settings, digital tools have been introduced to better track immunization records, improve data management practices, and provide improved access to vaccination coverage data for decision-making. Despite the potential of these electronic systems to improve the provision of health services, few digital health interventions have been institutionalized at scale in low- and middle-income countries.

Objective

In this paper, we aimed to describe how health care workers in Kenya had integrated an electronic immunization registry into their immunization clinic workflows and to use these findings to inform the development of a refined program theory on the registry’s usability.

Methods

Informed by realist methodology, we developed a program theory to explain usability of the electronic immunization registry. We designed a qualitative study based on our theory to describe the barriers and facilitators influencing data entry and use. Qualitative data were collected through semistructured interviews with users and workflow observations of immunization clinic sessions. Our findings were summarized by context-mechanism-outcome relationships formed after analyzing our key themes across interviews and workflow observations. Using these relationships, we were able to identify common rules for future implementers.

Results

Across the 12 facilities included in our study, 19 health care workers were interviewed, and 58 workflow sessions were observed. The common rules developed from our qualitative findings are as follows: rule 1—ensure that the users complete training to build familiarity with the system, understand the value of the system and data, and know where to find support; rule 2—confirm that the system captures all data needed for users to provide routine health care services and is easy to navigate; rule 3—identify work-arounds for poor network, system performance, and too few staff or resources; and rule 4—make users aware of expected changes to their workflow, and how these changes might differ over time and by facility size or number of patients. Upon study completion, we revised the program theory to reflect the importance of the goals and workflows of electronic immunization registries aligning with reality.

Conclusions

We created a deeper understanding of the underlying mechanisms for usability of the registry. We found that the electronic immunization registry had high acceptability among users; however, there were numerous barriers to using the system, even under ideal conditions, causing a misalignment between the system and the reality of the users’ workflows and their environment. Human-centered design and human-factors methods can assist during pilot stages to better align systems with users’ needs and again after scale-up to ensure that interventions are suitable for all user settings."

**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**

✪ Human-centered design methods to achieve preparation phase goals in the multiphase optimization strategy framework

Authors:

Karey L. O’Hara, Lindsey M. Knowles, Kate Guastaferro, and Aaron R. Lyon

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: October 2022

Read the full text in the open access journal Implementation Research and Practice

Abstract:

Background

The public health impact of behavioral and biobehavioral interventions to prevent and treat mental health and substance use problems hinges on developing methods to strategically maximize their effectiveness, affordability, scalability, and efficiency.

Methods

The multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) is an innovative, principled framework that guides the development of multicomponent interventions. Each phase of MOST (Preparation, Optimization, Evaluation) has explicit goals and a range of appropriate research methods to achieve them. Methods for attaining Optimization and Evaluation phase goals are well-developed. However, methods used in the Preparation phase are often highly researcher-specific, and concrete ways to achieve Preparation phase goals are a priority area for further development.

Results

We propose that the discover, design, build, and test (DDBT) framework provides a theory-driven and methods-rich roadmap for achieving the goals of the Preparation phase of MOST, including specifying the conceptual model, identifying and testing candidate intervention components, and defining the optimization objective. The DDBT framework capitalizes on strategies from the field of human-centered design and implementation science to drive its data collection methods.

Conclusions

MOST and DDBT share many conceptual features, including an explicit focus on implementation determinants, being iterative and flexible, and designing interventions for the greatest public health impact. The proposed synthesized DDBT/MOST approach integrates DDBT into the Preparation phase of MOST thereby providing a framework for rigorous and efficient intervention development research to bolster the success of intervention optimization.

Plain Language Summary

What is already known about the topic? Optimizing behavioral interventions to balance effectiveness with affordability, scalability, and efficiency requires a significant investment in intervention development.

What does this paper add? This paper provides a structured approach to integrating human-centered design principles into the Preparation phase of the multiphase optimization strategy (MOST).

What are the implications for practice, research, or policy? The proposed synthesized model provides a framework for rigorous and efficient intervention development research in the Preparation phase of MOST that will ensure the success of intervention optimization and contribute to improving public health impact of mental health and substance use interventions.

**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**

✪ Applying human-centered design to maximize acceptability, feasibility, and usability of mobile technology supervision in Kenya: A mixed methods pilot study protocol

Authors:

Noah S. Triplett, Sean Munson, Anne Mbwayo, Teresia Mutavi, Bryan J. Weiner, Pamela Collins, Cyrilla Amanya, & Shannon Dorsey

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: January 2021

Read the full text in the open access journal Implementation Science Communications

Abstract:

Background

Although research continues to support task-shifting as an effective model of delivering evidence-based practices (EBPs), little scholarship has focused how to scale up and sustain task-shifting in low- and middle-income countries, including how to sustainably supervise lay counselors. Ongoing supervision is critical to ensure EBPs are delivered with fidelity; however, the resources and expertise required to provide ongoing supervision may limit the potential to scale up and sustain task shifting. Opportunities may exist to leverage mobile technology to replace or supplement in-person supervision in low-resource contexts, but contextual variables, such as network connectivity and lay counselor preferences surrounding mobile technology, must be examined and considered when designing and implementing mobile technology supervision.

Methods

This study builds from an existing randomized trial in Kenya, wherein teachers and community health volunteers have been trained to provide trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy as lay counselors. The study will use an iterative and mixed methods approach, with qualitative interviews and a Human-Centered Design (HCD) workshop informing a non-randomized pilot trial. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with lay counselors and supervisors to understand how mobile technology is currently being used for supervision and determine the barriers and facilitators to mobile technology supervision. Data from these interviews will inform an HCD workshop, where lay counselors and supervisors “re-design” supervision to most effectively leverage mobile technology. Workshop participants will also participate in focus groups to gather perceptions on the use of HCD techniques. The final outcome of the workshop will be a set of refined workflows, which will be tested in a mixed method, nonrandomized pilot with newly trained lay counselors and existing supervisors. The pilot trial will evaluate the acceptability, feasibility, and usability of mobile technology supervision through self-report questionnaires as well as perceptions of effectiveness through qualitative interviews with a subset of lay counselors and all supervisors.

Discussion

This study will provide a launching point for future research on supervision and methods to engage stakeholders to design and tailor interventions and implementation supports to fit low-resourced contexts.

Trial registration

The parent trial from which this study builds was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov on August 9, 2017 (NCT03243396).

**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**

✪ Use of Human-Centered Design to Improve Implementation of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies in Low-Resource Communities: Protocol for Studies Applying a Framework to Assess Usability


Authors:

Aaron R Lyon, Sean A Munson, Brenna N Renn, David C Atkins, Michael D Pullmann, Emily Friedman, & Patricia A Areán

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: September 2019

Read the full text in the open access journal JMIR Research Protocols

Abstract:

Background

This paper presents the protocol for the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)–funded University of Washington’s ALACRITY (Advanced Laboratories for Accelerating the Reach and Impact of Treatments for Youth and Adults with Mental Illness) Center (UWAC), which uses human-centered design (HCD) methods to improve the implementation of evidence-based psychosocial interventions (EBPIs). We propose that usability—the degree to which interventions and implementation strategies can be used with ease, efficiency, effectiveness, and satisfaction—is a fundamental, yet poorly understood determinant of implementation.

Objective

We present a novel Discover, Design/Build, and Test (DDBT) framework to study usability as an implementation determinant. DDBT will be applied across Center projects to develop scalable and efficient implementation strategies (eg, training tools), modify existing EBPIs to enhance usability, and create usable and nonburdensome decision support tools for quality delivery of EBPIs.

Methods

Stakeholder participants will be implementation practitioners/intermediaries, mental health clinicians, and patients with mental illness in nonspecialty mental health settings in underresourced communities. Three preplanned projects and 12 pilot studies will employ the DDBT model to (1) identify usability challenges in implementing EBPIs in underresourced settings; (2) iteratively design solutions to overcome these challenges; and (3) compare the solution to the original version of the EPBI or implementation strategy on usability, quality of care, and patient-reported outcomes. The final products from the center will be a streamlined modification and redesign model that will improve the usability of EBPIs and implementation strategies (eg, tools to support EBPI education and decision making); a matrix of modification targets (ie, usability issues) that are both common and unique to EBPIs, strategies, settings, and patient populations; and a compilation of redesign strategies and the relative effectiveness of the redesigned solution compared to the original EBPI or strategy.

Results

The UWAC received institutional review board approval for the three separate studies in March 2018 and was funded in May 2018.

Conclusions

The outcomes from this center will inform the implementation of EBPIs by identifying cross-cutting features of EBPIs and implementation strategies that influence the use and acceptability of these interventions, actively involving stakeholder clinicians and implementation practitioners in the design of the EBPI modification or implementation strategy solution and identifying the impact of HCD-informed modifications and solutions on intervention effectiveness and quality.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03515226 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03515226), NCT03514394 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03514394), and NCT03516513 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03516513).

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/14990

**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**