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

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH BMC Public Health Pub Date : 2025-03-31 DOI:10.1186/s12889-025-22491-z
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
{"title":"Using human-centered design to advance health literacy in local health department programming: a case study.","authors":"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","doi":"10.1186/s12889-025-22491-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>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>","PeriodicalId":9039,"journal":{"name":"BMC Public Health","volume":"25 1","pages":"1207"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11956235/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-22491-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利用以人为本的设计促进地方卫生部门规划中的卫生知识普及:一个案例研究。
背景:以人为本的设计(HCD)和行为科学是结构化的、基于证据的方法,用于开发和评估社区驱动的干预措施。HCD侧重于深入理解用户需求并共同设计解决方案,而行为科学则应用经验验证的原则来推动行为改变。总之,这些方法能够制定以用户为中心和以行为为依据的干预措施。皮马县卫生局和项目合作伙伴利用这些协作方法组建了一个实践社区,以提高皮马县育龄和有能力的西班牙裔/拉丁裔个人的健康素养和对COVID-19公共卫生实践的遵守程度。方法:以人为本的设计过程识别和评估目标人群面临的障碍。在这些发现的基础上,在2023年7月至2023年11月期间实施了两项试点干预措施:一项在临床环境中有92名参与者,另一项在社区环境中有207名参与者。采用混合方法评估这些试点的影响。定量地,前后评价和调查设计通过使用配对t检验和卡方检验比较实施前后的结果来估计干预的效果。定性地,对参与者进行结构化的干预后访谈,参与者是根据他们最初的同意和参与意愿随机选择的。结果:临床和社区试点的参与者认为干预后寻求健康行为的障碍减少了。结论:将以人为本的设计和行为科学纳入公共卫生干预措施,可以提高历史上和当代被排斥人群的健康素养和健康寻求行为的信心。地方卫生部门可以利用这些方法制定多成分干预措施,促进与社区的共同发明,并改善人口健康结果。未来的研究应侧重于长期影响,并探索这些方法在不同背景下的更广泛应用。试验注册:本项目已获得亚利桑那大学IRB审查和批准。该研究不被认为是随机对照试验,不需要注册。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Public Health
BMC Public Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
4.40%
发文量
2108
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: BMC Public Health is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on the epidemiology of disease and the understanding of all aspects of public health. The journal has a special focus on the social determinants of health, the environmental, behavioral, and occupational correlates of health and disease, and the impact of health policies, practices and interventions on the community.
期刊最新文献
Association between diabetes and sarcopenia in US adults and the role of adiposity: a survey-weighted analysis of NHANES 2011-2018. Mechanisms linking international leisure sport tourism to mental health and subjective well-being: evidence from a three-wave mixed-effects model. Rubella outbreak investigation in Adigrat town of Eastern Tigray, Northern Ethiopia, 2024: case-control study design. Effect of a creative drama-based educational ıntervention on menstrual attitudes and genital hygiene behaviors in adolescent girls: a randomized controlled trial. Mapping research evidence on the use of contraceptives among adolescent girls in Africa: a scoping study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1