Skip to content

✪ Human-Centered Design of an mHealth Tool for Optimizing HIV Index Testing in Wartime Ukraine: Formative Research Case Study

Authors:

Nancy Puttkammer, Elizabeth Dunbar, Myroslava Germanovych, Mariia Rosol, Matthew Golden, Anna Hubashova, Vladyslav Fedorchenko, Larisa Hetman, Liudmyla Legkostup, Jan Flowers, and Olena Nesterova

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: January 2025

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

Abstract:

Background

Assisted partner services (APSs; sometimes called index testing) are now being brought to scale as a high-yield HIV testing strategy in many nations. However, the success of APSs is often hampered by low levels of partner elicitation. The Computer-Assisted Self-Interview (CASI)–Plus study sought to develop and test a mobile health (mHealth) tool to increase the elicitation of sexual and needle-sharing partners among persons with newly diagnosed HIV. CASI-Plus provides client-facing information on APS methods and uses a standardized, self-guided questionnaire with nonjudgmental language for clients to list partners who would benefit from HIV testing. The tool also enables health care workers (HCWs) to see summarized data to facilitate partner tracking.

Objective

The formative research phase of the CASI-Plus study aimed to gather client and HCW input on the design of the CASI-Plus tool to ensure its acceptability, feasibility, and usability.

Methods

This study gathered input to prioritize features and tested the usability of CASI-Plus with HCWs and clients receiving HIV services in public health clinics in wartime Ukraine. The CASI-Plus study’s formative phase, carried out from May 2023 to July 2024, adapted human-centered design (HCD) methods grounded in principles of empathy, iteration, and creative ideation. The study involved 3 steps: formative HCD, including in-depth individual interviews with clients, such as men who have sex with men and people who inject drugs, and internet-based design workshops with HCWs from rural and urban HIV clinics in Chernihiv and Dnipro; software platform assessment and heuristic evaluation, including assessment of open-source mHealth platforms against CASI-Plus requirements, prototype development, and testing of the REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) prototype based on usability heuristics; and usability walk-throughs, including simulated cases with HCWs and clients.

Results:

The formative phase of the CASI-Plus study included in-depth individual interviews with 10 clients and 3 workshops with 22 HCWs. This study demonstrated how simplified HCD methods, adapted to the wartime context, gathered rich input on prioritized features and tool design. The CASI-Plus design reflected features that are both culturally sensitive and in alignment with the constraints of Ukraine’s wartime setting. Prioritized features included information about the benefits of HIV index testing; a nonjudgmental, self-guided questionnaire to report partners; client stories; and bright images to accompany the text. Two-way SMS text messaging between clients and HCWs was deemed impractical based on risks of privacy breaches, national patient privacy regulations, and HCW workload./p>

Conclusions

It was feasible to conduct HCD research in Ukraine in a wartime setting. The CASI-Plus mHealth tool was acceptable to both HCWs and clients. The next step for this research is a randomized clinical trial of the effect of the REDCap-based CASI-Plus tool on the number of partners named and the rate of partners completing HIV testing.

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

✪ Testing the effectiveness and implementation of a brief version of the Common Elements Treatment Approach (CETA) in Ukraine: A study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Authors:

Laura K. Murray, Emily E. Haroz, S. Benjamin Doty, Namrita S. Singh, Sergey Bogdanov, Judith Bass, Shannon Dorsey and Paul Bolton

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: August 2018

Read the full text in the open access journal Trials

Abstract:

Background

Mental illness is a major public health concern. Despite progress understanding which treatments work, a significant treatment gap remains. An ongoing concern is treatment length. Modular, flexible, transdiagnostic approaches have been offered as one solution to scalability challenges. The Common Elements Treatment Approach (CETA) is one such approach and offers the ability to treat a wide range of common mental health problems. CETA is supported by two randomized trials from low- and middle-income countries showing strong effectiveness and implementation outcomes.

Methods/design

This trial evaluates the effectiveness and implementation of two versions of CETA using a non-inferiority design to test two primary hypotheses: (1) a brief five-session version of CETA (Brief CETA) will provide similar effectiveness for reducing the severity of common mental health problems such as depression, post-traumatic stress, impaired functioning, anxiety, and substance use problems compared with the standard 8–12-session version of CETA (Standard CETA); and (2) both Brief and Standard CETA will have superior impact on the outcomes compared to a wait-list control condition. For both hypotheses, the main effect will be assessed using longitudinal data and mixed-effects regression models over a 6-month period post baseline. A secondary aim includes exploration of implementation factors. Additional planned analyses will include exploration of: moderators of treatment impact by disorder severity and comorbidity; the impact of individual therapeutic components; and trends in symptom change between end of treatment and 6-month assessment for all participants.

Discussion

This trial is the first rigorous study comparing a standard-length (8–12 sessions) modular, flexible, transdiagnostic, cognitive-behavioral approach to a shortened version of the approach (five sessions). Brief CETA entails “front-loading” with elements that research suggests are strong mechanisms of change. The study design will allow us to draw conclusions about the effects of both Brief and Standard CETA as well as which elements are integral to their mechanisms of action, informing future implementation and fidelity efforts. The results from this trial will inform future dissemination, implementation and scale-up of CETA in Ukraine and contribute to our understanding of the effects of modular, flexible, transdiagnostic approaches in similar contexts.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03058302 (U.S. National Library of Medicine). Registered on 20 February 2017.