Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42436554›Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2026

Rigorous projects and grants integrating human-centered design and implementation science: 8 tips for success.

Tricia Aung, Katie P Osterhage, Andrea K Graham, Enola K Proctor, Aaron R Lyon, Sean A Munson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Tricia AungDepartment of Human Centered Design & Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. taung@uw.edu.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0567-0519
Katie P OsterhageDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Andrea K GrahamCenter for Behavioral Intervention Technologies, Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Enola K ProctorBrown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Aaron R LyonDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Sean A MunsonDepartment of Human Centered Design & Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.

Funding

UW ALACRITY Center for Psychosocial Interventions ResearchP50MH115837 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Aaron Robert Lyon, Sean Munson · 2018 to 2026
$18.2M
Evaluation of an Asynchronous Remote Communities Approach to Behavioral Activation for Depressed AdolescentsR34MH128387 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI JENNESS, JESSICA LYNNE, KIENTZ, JULIE · 2022 to 2024
$726k
Institute of Education Sciences R305A230391NIMH NIH HHS P50 MH115837NIMH NIH HHS P50 MH115837 and R34 MH128387NIMH NIH HHS R34 MH128387
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearchers and funders increasingly see potential for integrating human-centered design (HCD) and implementation science (IS) approaches to enhance the design and uptake of health interventions and implementation strategies. These approaches offer complementary strengths. HCD prioritizes developing compelling, intuitive, and adoptable innovations grounded in user and contextual needs; IS focuses on ensuring evidence-based practices reach and work for their intended populations. Integrating HCD and IS creates challenges that existing IS proposal writing guidelines do not address. HCD's inherent uncertainty-since final designs are developed through iteration rather than pre-determined-can unsettle researchers and funders accustomed to more defined endpoints. Variation in how HCD is understood adds further difficulty when collaborating across disciplines or communicating with funders. There are currently no published recommendations to help researchers design strong studies integrating HCD and IS and communicate them effectively to funders. DISCUSSION: We present tips to support both rigorous study design and effective proposal writing that integrate HCD and IS. This draws from our experiences leading, supporting, and reviewing both funded and unfunded projects. Our considerations are informed primarily by experiences with teams in the United States in the mental health and behavioral health domains; however, we have found our findings also apply to projects globally and in other health sectors. Our intent is that this guide will advance good research that leverages both approaches and is viable for funding. We also hope that the tips will support funders in developing solicitations and evaluating proposals.

conclusionThere is untapped potential for innovative health research integrating HCD and IS, but realizing it requires both rigorous study design and an ability to attract funding. We offer practice guidance to help researchers and funders develop quality projects and proposals, and we encourage others to build on these recommendations.

Indexed as

Human-centered designHuman computer interactionImplementation researchProposal writingStudy designTeam science

Identifiers

PMID42436554
PMCPMC13663271

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.