Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31250241›Full record

ArticleMaternal and child health journal2019

Primary Care Women's Health Screening: A Case Study of a Community Engaged Human Centered Design Approach to Enhancing the Screening Process.

Kathleen A Foley, Julie Shelton, Evan Richardson, Nikita Smart, Cindy Smart-McMillan, Opeolu S'ade Mustakem, Angela Young, Dan Davis, Dan Frayne

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Maternal and child health journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Kathleen A FoleyDivision of Research, UNC Health Sciences at MAHEC, 121 Hendersonville Road, Asheville, NC, 28803, USA. Kathy.foley@mahec.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3661-1578
Julie SheltonCenter for Quality Improvement, Mountain Area Health Education Center, 121 Hendersonville Road, Asheville, NC, 28803, USA.
Evan RichardsonCenter for Quality Improvement, Mountain Area Health Education Center, 121 Hendersonville Road, Asheville, NC, 28803, USA.
Nikita SmartHomegrown Babies, Asheville Childbirth Education, Birth Doulas, 201 Charlotte Street, Asheville, NC, 28801, USA.
Cindy Smart-McMillanHomegrown Babies, Asheville Childbirth Education, Birth Doulas, 201 Charlotte Street, Asheville, NC, 28801, USA.
Opeolu S'ade MustakemHomegrown Babies, Asheville Childbirth Education, Birth Doulas, 201 Charlotte Street, Asheville, NC, 28801, USA.
Angela Young, Roseville, USA.
Dan DavisInformation Technology, Mountain Area Health Education Center, 123 Hendersonville Road, Asheville, NC, 28803, USA.
Dan FrayneFamily Health Center, Mountain Area Health Education Center, 123 Hendersonville Road, Asheville, NC, 28803, USA.

Funding

North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence 1 ASTWH150030-01-00
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo apply a Human Centered Design (HCD) approach to co-designing a comprehensive women's health screening tool with community partners. DESCRIPTION: Evidenced-based health screenings for behaviors and risks are important tools in primary health care and disease prevention, especially for women. However, numerous barriers limit the effective implementation of comprehensive health screenings, and often lead to excluding important risks such as intimate partner violence (IPV). Utilizing a human centered design approach (HCD), Mountain Area Health Education Center (MAHEC, NC USA) developed a community co-designed 9-topic health screening for women. Key end-users were recruited to participate in the design process, including women who identified IPV as a health issue in their community, Spanish speaking women, domestic violence program organizers, and MAHEC staff. ASSESSMENT: A total of 21 participants collaborated during three design sessions on two specific goals: 1) creating a comprehensive women's health screening tool from the existing tools that were in use in our clinics at the time, and 2) incorporating IPV screening. Through the HCD sessions, participants highlighted the impact of what they termed "Triple T: time, trust and talk" on the effectiveness of women's health screening.

conclusionOur co-designed women's health screening tool is a first step towards addressing screening barriers from both primary care provider's and community women's perspectives. Future research will explore the facilitators of and barriers to implementing the tools in different primary care settings. Future work should also more systematically examine whether and how screening processes may reinforce or contribute to women's feelings of being stereotyped, and how screening processes can be designed to avoid stereotype threat, which has the potential to reduce the effectiveness of screenings intended to promote women's health.

Indexed as

Case-Control StudiesCommunity ParticipationHumansIntimate Partner ViolenceMass ScreeningNorth CarolinaPrimary Health CareUniversal DesignHealth screeningsHuman center designIntimate partner violenceWomen

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.