Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40813242›Full record

ReviewGlobal health, science and practice2025

Narrative Review of Human-Centered Design in Public Health Interventions in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Recommendations for Practice, Research, and Reporting.

Bee-Ah Kang, Manvi Poddar, Aditi Luitel, Rajiv N Rimal, Biruk Melaku, Danielle Piccinini Black

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Global health, science and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The Development and Acceptability of a Psychology-Based Intervention for Debilitating Symptom Complexes Attributed to Ticks.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

6 authors.

Bee-Ah KangDepartment of Health, Behavior & Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. beeah.kang@jhu.edu.
Manvi PoddarDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Aditi LuitelDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Rajiv N RimalDepartment of Health, Behavior & Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Biruk MelakuJohns Hopkins Center for Communication Programs, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Danielle Piccinini BlackJohns Hopkins Center for Communication Programs, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The application of human-centered design (HCD) is growing in global health, given its potential to generate innovative solutions to entrenched health problems by prioritizing human perspectives, needs, and desires. To address gaps in consolidated evidence on prior programs, we conducted a review of studies that applied a comprehensive HCD approach in low- and middle-income countries. A total of 535 articles were initially identified. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 22 articles were included. Most studies were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa and used qualitative or mixed methods throughout the HCD work. In the "discover and define" phase, user personas, journey maps, and interviews were commonly used to empathize with end users and key stakeholders. Studies used various strategies in the "ideation" phase, including idea generation based on feasibility and resource constraints. In the "testing" phase, low-fidelity prototypes were tested to obtain feedback from end users and stakeholders, enabling quick and cost-effective refinements. Prototype iterations occurred twice in most studies, but information about when iterations ceased was limited. Evaluations of design outcomes and health impacts were lacking. Studies cited multidisciplinary approaches, flexible methodology, and a sense of ownership among users and communities as strengths of HCD. Contrastingly, challenges in consistent participant engagement and limited scientific rigor were reported as weaknesses. Elements that enhanced program reporting included clear descriptions of HCD as cyclical, stakeholder maps (empathy tools), visual materials on design activities and prototypes, and transparency in failures. We recommend strengthening capacity among those applying HCD to optimize the effectiveness of the approach for global health. Although HCD is not inherently intended to serve as a rigorous research method, data triangulation and proper evaluations may ensure its usability as evidence in health research when appropriate. Also, a thorough reporting of design phases and providing detailed rationale behind design decisions can advance future HCD literature.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesPublic HealthHumans

Identifiers

PMID40813242
PMCPMC12352946

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.