Cited by 478Health Policy Implementation ScienceUsability and User Interface DesignDigital Mental Health Interventions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 133 of the 134 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 121 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

User‐centered design for psychosocial intervention development and implementation.

Open access
Lyon, Aaron R., Koerner, Kelly·2016·Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice

Abstract

The current paper articulates how common difficulties encountered when attempting to implement or scale-up evidence-based treatments are exacerbated by fundamental design problems, which may be addressed by a set of principles and methods drawn from the contemporary field of user-centered design. User-centered design is an approach to product development that grounds the process in information collected about the individuals and settings where products will ultimately be used. To demonstrate the utility of this perspective, we present four design concepts and methods: (a) clear identification of end users and their needs, (b) prototyping/rapid iteration, (c) simplifying existing intervention parameters/procedures, and (d) exploiting natural constraints. We conclude with a brief design-focused research agenda for the developers and implementers of evidence-based treatments.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This conceptual paper argues that common failures in implementing and scaling evidence-based psychosocial treatments stem partly from design flaws and can be addressed by user-centered design principles. It proposes four design concepts—identifying users and needs, prototyping/rapid iteration, simplification, and exploiting natural constraints—and outlines a design-focused research agenda.

Key findings

  • The paper contends that evidence-based treatments are often disseminated as static, complex protocols, creating mismatches with community users and implementation contexts; it proposes user-centered design as a way to improve acceptability, feasibility, appropriateness, and long-term effectiveness.
  • It identifies four transferable design concepts: clearly specifying primary, secondary, and negative users; using prototyping and rapid iteration; simplifying intervention parameters and materials; and treating contextual barriers as design constraints rather than obstacles to overcome.
  • It cites examples and figures from other work, including that the 10-item System Usability Scale yields scores from 0–100 with scores above 70 considered acceptable for digital technologies, that software updates may be pushed out roughly every 6 weeks, and that school-based service windows may be about 3–4 sessions.
  • It recommends a research agenda that includes usability assessment protocols, adapting measures such as the System Usability Scale to evidence-based treatments, using adherence data as a usability signal, and testing intervention configurations through routine outcome monitoring.

Methods

  • Design: conceptual/theoretical paper, not an empirical study; it synthesizes user-centered design literature and applies it to psychosocial intervention development, packaging, and implementation.
  • Data or sample: no study sample or dataset is analyzed; examples are drawn from prior literature and existing intervention efforts.
  • Main analysis: narrative argument and framework development, organized around four design concepts with definitions, techniques, and applications to evidence-based treatments.

Limitations

  • The authors state that the paper remains largely theoretical and that research is needed to test the applicability of user-centered design principles and evaluate system-, provider-, and client-level outcomes.
  • The authors note that few studies have examined evidence-based treatment design features such as simplicity and usability in relation to implementation outcomes, and that no specific funding mechanisms currently support comparable rapid work in behavioral health.
  • Evident from the text: there is no empirical evaluation, sample, or quantitative result reported here, so the proposed benefits and applications are not directly tested in this paper.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/cpsp.12154

Cites

133 of 134 references verified0 citation errors · 1 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 121 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 67 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 48
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 19
61 of 61
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Existing implementation frameworks provide almost no guidance on specific methods for ensuring that EBT successfully meet user needs.

    “existing frameworks provide almost no guidance surrounding specific methods for ensuring that EBT successfully meet user needs”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    High complexity can interfere with the extent to which EBT are readily accessible to providers or organizations interested in adopting them.

    “High complexity can interfere with the extent to which EBT are readily accessible to providers or organizations interested in adopting them to improve their practice.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    EBT are exceedingly difficult to train and learn.

    “As a partial function of their complexity, EBT are exceedingly difficult to train and learn.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    High-quality EBT training is expensive and elusive for many practitioners.

    “As a result of the effort required, high-quality EBT training is expensive and elusive for many practitioners.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There are currently few clear principles or procedures available to guide ongoing adjustment and evaluation of EBT effectively.

    “However, there are currently few clear principles or procedures available to guide this work effectively.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    A university-based research team traditionally develops and tests an intervention extensively before it is disseminated as a fully-formed, static intervention protocol.

    “a university-based research team most traditionally develops and tests an intervention extensively, articulating its key functions and structure, before it is disseminated more broadly as a fully-formed, static intervention protocol.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    A UCD approach has not yet been applied to the development or implementation of EBT themselves.

    “Nevertheless, a UCD approach has not yet been applied to the development or implementation of EBT themselves.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    EBT development processes tend to emphasize the needs and perspectives of intervention developers over those of well-defined user groups.

    “EBT development processes tend to emphasize the needs and perspectives of intervention developers over those of well-defined user groups.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Little research has focused on designing EBT to be responsive to the needs of decision makers while keeping intervention effectiveness intact or on systematically planning evaluations of the modifications needed to better fit setting constraints.

    “little research has focused on ways to design EBT to be responsive to the needs of these decision makers while keeping intervention effectiveness intact or to systematically plan evaluations of the modifications needed to better fit setting constraints”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No specific funding mechanisms currently exist to support comparable, rapid work in behavioral health.

    “but no specific funding mechanisms currently exist to support comparable, rapid work in behavioral health.”
10 of 10

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 132 references

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Aarons, 2013, Scaling-up evidence-based practices in child welfare services systems, CYF News
  2. Balas, 2000, Yearbook of medical informatics 2000: Patient-centered systems, 65
  3. Cooper, 2007, About face 3: The essentials of interaction design
  4. Grudin, 2002, PDC 2002 Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference, Sweden, 144
  5. International Standards Organization, 1998, Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) - Part 11: Guidance on usability
  6. Martin, 1990, Book design: A practical introduction
  7. Rogers, 2003, Diffusions of innovations
  8. Salvo, 2007, A case of exhaustive documentation: Re-centering system-oriented organizations around user need, Technical Communication, 54, 46
  9. Sauro, 2011, A practical guide to the System Usability Scale: Background, benchmarks & best practices
  10. Weisz, 2011, Child and adolescent therapy: Cognitive-behavioral procedures, 379

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 401–477 of 477

Metadata

Authors
Lyon, A. R., & Koerner, K.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Venue
Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice
Published
2016-06
Volume
23
Issue
2
Pages
180-200
ISSN
  • 0969-5893 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-2850
OpenAlex
W2443106973
Cited by
478
References
132
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 55 · 2024: 96 · 2023: 55 · 2022: 64 · 2021: 91 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 2
FWCI
31.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Science and Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (K08 MH095939, R25 MH080916)
  • US Department of Veterans Affairs
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
user-centered design, psychosocial interventions, evidence-based practice implementation, scale-up, end-user needs, rapid prototyping, natural constraints, design principles

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review