Patient-centered Design Grounded in User and Clinical Realities: Towards Valid Digital Health
Abstract
Valid design of patient-centered digital health or health information technology (IT) systems is based on a thorough and accurate understanding of both “user reality” and “clinical reality.” Type 1 Design Error (User-Reality Error) occurs when designers do not accommodate user characteristics, tasks, context of use, needs, or preferences. Type 2 Design Error (Clinical-Reality Error) occurs when designers do not accommodate the clinical reality, including biomedical knowledge, clinical workflows, and organizational requirements. Both types of errors can invalidate the design, leading to products being rejected by patient end-users or their healthcare delivery systems, product non-use or inappropriate use, and risk of harm. This paper describes our attempts to achieve valid health IT design and avoid the two design errors. We performed iterative, patient-centered design to prototype a mobile application, Power to the Patient (P2P), supporting heart failure self-care management. Our multidisciplinary team of human factors, cardiology, and design experts developed and iteratively refined requirements based on data collection, review, and testing with patient research participants, a patient advisory board, a clinical advisory board, and experts on the team. We describe our process and reflect on working with multiple stakeholders toward the goal of valid health IT design.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The UCD iterative process creates highly engaging and effective mHealth apps, requiring collaboration between end users, content experts, and user experience (UX) designers.
“This iterative process creates highly engaging and effective mHealth apps, requiring collaboration between end users, content experts, and user experience (UX) designers [23,24].”
From Co-Designing the MOSAIC mHealth App With Breast Cancer Survivors: User-Centered Design Approach (2024) · cites this paper as [23]
Many mHealth apps go unused because they fail to meet the needs of the patient, the clinician, or both.
“However, many mHealth apps go unused because they fail to meet the needs of the patient, the clinician, or both [23].”
From Co-Designing the MOSAIC mHealth App With Breast Cancer Survivors: User-Centered Design Approach (2024) · cites this paper as [23]
The proposed solution, endorsed by the World Health Organization and International Standards Organization, is to use UCD, bringing the end user and content experts together with UX designers to co-design an mHealth app.
“The proposed solution, endorsed by the World Health Organization, [22] and International Standards Organization [42], is to use UCD, bringing the end user and content experts together with UX designers to co-design an mHealth app [23,43,44].”
From Co-Designing the MOSAIC mHealth App With Breast Cancer Survivors: User-Centered Design Approach (2024) · cites this paper as [23]
The iterative UCD process begins with a needs assessment of both the end user and the content experts, including interviews and focus groups.
“The iterative process begins with a needs assessment of both the end user and the content experts, including interviews and focus groups [19,23,44,47].”
From Co-Designing the MOSAIC mHealth App With Breast Cancer Survivors: User-Centered Design Approach (2024) · cites this paper as [23]
Cites
Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research
(1988) · Advances in Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0166-4115(08)62386-9 · Cited by 15,003 · see citing works
Roger, V. L. (2013) · Circulation Research · doi:10.1161/circresaha.113.300268 · Cited by 1,728 · see citing works
Designing eHealth that Matters via a Multidisciplinary Requirements Development Approach
Van Velsen, L., Wentzel, J., & Van Gemert-Pijnen, J. E. (2013) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/resprot.2547 · Cited by 262 · see citing works
Seven lessons for interdisciplinary research on interactive digital health interventions
Blandford, A., Gibbs, J., Newhouse, N., Perski, O., Singh, A., & Murray, E. (2018) · DIGITAL HEALTH · doi:10.1177/2055207618770325 · Cited by 209 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Co-Designing the MOSAIC mHealth App With Breast Cancer Survivors: User-Centered Design Approach
Nuseibeh, B. Z., Johns, S. A., Shih, P. C., Lewis, G. F., Gowan, T. M., & Jordan, E. J. (2024) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/59426 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Cornet, V. P., Daley, C., Bolchini, D., Toscos, T., Mirro, M. J., & Holden, R. J.
- Affiliations
- Indiana University Indianapolis (US)
- Parkview Health (US)
- Regenstrief Institute (US)
- Corresponding author
- Holden, Richard J.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-09
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 100-104
- ISSN
- 2327-8579 (ISSN-L)
- 2327-8595
- OpenAlex
- W2974076400
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3
- FWCI
- 13.15
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care (publishedVersion)
- IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
- Purdue University Indianapolis (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Keywords
- patient-centered design, health information technology design, design validity, mobile health apps, stakeholder collaboration, clinical workflow, patient advisory board, iterative design
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.
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