Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37795040›Full record

ArticleGates open research2023

Balancing evidence-informed and user-responsive design: Experience with human-centered design to generate layered economic empowerment and SRH programming in Tanzania, Ethiopia, and Nigeria.

Meghan Cutherell, Mary Phillips, Carrie Ellett, Emnet Woubishet, Joy Otsanya Ede, Akinjide Adesina, Arnold Kabahaula, Alex Nana-Sinkam, Abednego Musau, Katherine Nichol

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gates open research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

10 authors.

Meghan CutherellPopulation Services International, Washington, District of Columbia, 20036, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0326-3629
Mary PhillipsPopulation Services International, Washington, District of Columbia, 20036, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-2868-1169
Carrie EllettBRAC International, Nairobi, Kenya.
Emnet WoubishetPopulation Services International Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Joy Otsanya EdeSociety for Family Health Nigeria, Abuja, Federal Capital Territory, Nigeria.
Akinjide AdesinaSociety for Family Health Nigeria, Abuja, Federal Capital Territory, Nigeria.
Arnold KabahaulaPopulation Services International Tanzania, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Alex Nana-SinkamIDEO.org, Nairobi, Kenya.
Abednego MusauPopulation Services International, Washington, District of Columbia, 20036, USA.
Katherine NicholKore Global, Vancouver, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 2021, the Adolescents 360 (A360) project pursued a human-centered design (HCD) process to layer complementary economic empowerment components on top of its existing sexual and reproductive health (SRH) interventions targeting adolescent girls aged 15 to 19. Given the volume of evidence informing successful approaches for improving economic and empowerment outcomes for adolescents, we pursued an intentionally evidence-informed and gender-intentional design process, while trying to also respond directly to user insights. In this open letter, we share how we utilized and validated the evidence-base while applying the core tenets of HCD (empathy and user insights) to design holistic, layered programming for girls. We describe three overarching categories which depict how we used the existing evidence and new user insights to strengthen our design process. Often the evidence base allowed us to expedite finding a solution that worked for our users. However, at times there was a disconnect between what we knew worked in the evidence base and what our users said they wanted. New insights also allowed us to build a greater understanding of our users' lived experiences where there were existing evidence gaps. We were aided by the engagement of a technical partner, BRAC, who synthesized evidence for our design teams and functioned as an 'on demand' support mechanism as questions and challenges arose. Yet, the volume of information to absorb almost guaranteed that we would miss out on the opportunity to apply certain evidence-based practices. We encourage researchers to consider how to make evidence more easily digestible to practitioners and for the whole community of practice to work together to identify what questions need to be asked to effectively operationalize evidence in a local context.

Indexed as

adolescentsAdolescents 360 (A360)economic empowermentevidence-basedgender-responsiveHuman-centered Design (HCD)sexual and reproductive health (SRH)user-centered

Identifiers

PMID37795040
PMCPMC10547119

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.