Scholarlink

Background <p>Human-centered design (HCD) and behavioral science are structured, evidence-based methodologies used to develop and evaluate community-driven interventions. While HCD focuses on deeply understanding user needs and co-designing solutions, behavioral science applies empirically tested principles to drive behavior change. Together, these methodologies enable the development of interventions that are both user-centered and behaviorally informed. The Pima County Health Department and project partners leveraged these collaborative methodologies to assemble a Community of Practice to improve health literacy and adherence to COVID-19 public health practices among Hispanic/Latine individuals of childbearing age and ability in Pima County.</p> Methods <p>Human-centered design processes identified and evaluated barriers facing the target population. On the basis of these findings, two pilot interventions were implemented between July 2023 and November 2023: one in a clinical setting with 92 participants and another in a community setting with 207 participants. A mixed-methods approach was used to evaluate the impact of these pilots. Quantitatively, a pre-post evaluation and survey design estimated the effect of an intervention by comparing outcomes before and after implementation using paired t-test and chi-square tests. Qualitatively, structured post intervention interviews were conducted with participants who were randomly selected based upon their initial consent and willingness to participate.</p> Results <p>Participants in the clinical and community pilots perceived fewer barriers to health-seeking behaviors after the intervention. Both pilots increased participants’ confidence in health-seeking behaviors (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.01). Only the clinical pilot resulted in an increase in health literacy. In the clinical pilot, the number of unvaccinated participants decreased, and the number of participants who reported needing a booster increased. The community pilot did not find a statistically significant difference in COVID-19 vaccine uptake.</p> Conclusions <p>Integrating human-centered design and behavioral science into public health interventions can improve health literacy and confidence in health-seeking behaviors among historically and contemporarily excluded populations. Local health departments can use these methods to develop multicomponent interventions that foster mutual co-invention with communities and improve population health outcomes. Future research should focus on long-term impacts and explore broader applications of these approaches in different contexts.</p> Trial registration <p>This project received University of Arizona IRB review and approval. This study was not considered a randomized controlled trial and did not require registration.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Using human-centered design to advance health literacy in local health department programming: a case study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年3月31日

查看全文
  • Adriane Ackerman,
  • Brittany Nigon,
  • Alexis Wait,
  • Elham Ali,
  • Ada M. Wilkinson-Lee,
  • Alexia Cohen,
  • Meredith Jones,
  • Imelda G. Cortez,
  • Katrina Kelly,
  • Robert Fabricant,
  • Jenitza Serrano-Feliciano,
  • Jennifer Stanowski,
  • Theresa Cullen

摘要

Background

Human-centered design (HCD) and behavioral science are structured, evidence-based methodologies used to develop and evaluate community-driven interventions. While HCD focuses on deeply understanding user needs and co-designing solutions, behavioral science applies empirically tested principles to drive behavior change. Together, these methodologies enable the development of interventions that are both user-centered and behaviorally informed. The Pima County Health Department and project partners leveraged these collaborative methodologies to assemble a Community of Practice to improve health literacy and adherence to COVID-19 public health practices among Hispanic/Latine individuals of childbearing age and ability in Pima County.

Methods

Human-centered design processes identified and evaluated barriers facing the target population. On the basis of these findings, two pilot interventions were implemented between July 2023 and November 2023: one in a clinical setting with 92 participants and another in a community setting with 207 participants. A mixed-methods approach was used to evaluate the impact of these pilots. Quantitatively, a pre-post evaluation and survey design estimated the effect of an intervention by comparing outcomes before and after implementation using paired t-test and chi-square tests. Qualitatively, structured post intervention interviews were conducted with participants who were randomly selected based upon their initial consent and willingness to participate.

Results

Participants in the clinical and community pilots perceived fewer barriers to health-seeking behaviors after the intervention. Both pilots increased participants’ confidence in health-seeking behaviors (p < 0.01). Only the clinical pilot resulted in an increase in health literacy. In the clinical pilot, the number of unvaccinated participants decreased, and the number of participants who reported needing a booster increased. The community pilot did not find a statistically significant difference in COVID-19 vaccine uptake.

Conclusions

Integrating human-centered design and behavioral science into public health interventions can improve health literacy and confidence in health-seeking behaviors among historically and contemporarily excluded populations. Local health departments can use these methods to develop multicomponent interventions that foster mutual co-invention with communities and improve population health outcomes. Future research should focus on long-term impacts and explore broader applications of these approaches in different contexts.

Trial registration

This project received University of Arizona IRB review and approval. This study was not considered a randomized controlled trial and did not require registration.