ArticleBMC public health2025
Using human-centered design to advance health literacy in local health department programming: a case study.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHuman-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.
methodsHuman-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.
resultsParticipants 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.
conclusionsIntegrating 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 registrationThis project received University of Arizona IRB review and approval. This study was not considered a randomized controlled trial and did not require registration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.