Advertisement

Maternal and Child Health Journal

, Volume 23, Issue 11, pp 1446–1458 | Cite as

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

  • Kathleen A. FoleyEmail author
  • Julie Shelton
  • Evan Richardson
  • Nikita Smart
  • Cindy Smart-McMillan
  • Opeolu “S’ade” Mustakem
  • Angela Young
  • Dan Davis
  • Dan Frayne
From the Field
  • 192 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To 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.

Conclusion

Our 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.

Keywords

Health screenings Women Intimate partner violence Human center design 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the North Carolina Coalition against Domestic Violence, who provided funding for this project.

References

  1. American Academy of Family Physicians. (2018). Women’s health clinical recommendations & guidelines. Retrieved from https://www.aafp.org/patient-care/browse/topics.tag-womens-health.html.
  2. Asche, D., Terwiesch, C., & Volpp, K. (2017). How to reduce primary care doctors’ workloads while improving care. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2017/11/how-to-reduce-primary-care-doctors-workloads-while-improving-care.
  3. Casalino, L. P., Gans, D., Weber, R., Cea, M., Tuchovsky, A., Bishop, T. F., et al. (2016). U.S. physician practices spend more than $15.4 billion annually to report quality measures. Health Affairs, 35(3), 401–406.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Chedid, A., & Phillips, K. (2018). Best practices for the design, implementation, and evaluation of prenatal health programs. Maternal and Child Health Journal.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-018-2600-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Giacomin, J. (2014). What is human centered design? The Design Journal, 17(4), 606–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Güss, C. (2018). What is going through your mind? Thinking aloud as a method in cross-cultural psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1292.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01292.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Hamberger, L. K., Rhodes, K., & Brown, J. (2015). Screening and intervention for intimate partner violence in healthcare settings: Creating sustainable system-level programs. Journal of Women’s Health, 24(1), 86–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Institute, L. U. M. A. (2012). Innovative for people handbook of human-centered design methods. Pittsburg, PA: LUMA Institute.Google Scholar
  9. Jones, P. R., Taylor, D. M., Dampeer-Moore, J., Van Allen, K. L., Saunders, D. R., Snowden, C. B., et al. (2013). Health-related stereotype threat predicts health services delays among blacks. Race and Social Problems, 5(2), 121–136.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Kaplan, J. (2007). Round robin. Retrieved from https://www.betterevaluation.org/en/evaluation-options/roundrobin.
  11. Kumar, V. (2013). 101 design methods: A structured approach for driving innovation in your organization. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Martin, B., & Hanington, B. (2012). Universal methods of design: 100 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions. Beverly, MA: Rockport Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Matheson, G., Pacione, C., Shultz, R., & Klugl, M. (2015). Leveraging human-centered design in chronic disease prevention. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 48(4), 472–479.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Merai, R. (2015). CDC coffee break: Human-centered design meets evaluation. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/pubs/docs/cb_july2015.pdf.
  15. Miller, E., McCaw, B., Humphreys, B., & Mitchell, C. (2015). Integrating intimate partner violence assessment and intervention into healthcare in the United States: A systems approach. Journal of Women’s Health, 24(1), 92–99.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Rosenthal, L., & Lobel, M. (2018). Gendered racism and the sexual reproductive health of Black and Latina women. Ethnicity & Health.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13557858.2018.1439896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sohal, H., Eldridge, S., & Feder, G. (2007). The sensitivity and specificity of four questions (HARK) to identify intimae partner violence: A diagnostic accuracy study in general practice. BMC Family Practice, 8(49), 1–9.Google Scholar
  18. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2017). Women’s preventive services initiative. Retrieved from https://www.acog.org/About-ACOG/ACOG-Departments/Annual-Womens-Health-Care/Womens-Preventive-Services-Initiative.
  19. United States Preventive Services Task Force. (2018). USPSTF A and B recommendations. Retrieved from https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Name/uspstf-a-and-b-recommendations.
  20. Vechakul, J., Shrimali, B., & Sandu, J. (2015). Human-centered design as an approach for place- based innovation in public health: A case study from Oakland, California. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 19(12), 2552–2559.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Woods-Giscombe, C., Robinson, N. M., Carthron, D., Devane-Johnson, S., & Corbie-Smith, G. (2016). Superwoman schema, stigma, spirituality, and culturally sensitive providers: Factors influencing African American women’s use of mental health services. Journal of Best Practices in Health Professions Diversity, Education, Research, and Policy., 9(1), 1124–1144.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kathleen A. Foley
    • 1
    Email author
  • Julie Shelton
    • 2
  • Evan Richardson
    • 2
  • Nikita Smart
    • 3
    • 4
  • Cindy Smart-McMillan
    • 3
    • 4
  • Opeolu “S’ade” Mustakem
    • 3
    • 4
  • Angela Young
    • 5
  • Dan Davis
    • 6
  • Dan Frayne
    • 7
  1. 1.Division of ResearchUNC Health Sciences at MAHECAshevilleUSA
  2. 2.Center for Quality ImprovementMountain Area Health Education CenterAshevilleUSA
  3. 3.Homegrown Babies, Asheville Childbirth Education, Birth DoulasAshevilleUSA
  4. 4.Sistas Caring for SistasAshevilleUSA
  5. 5.RosevilleUSA
  6. 6.Information Technology, Mountain Area Health Education CenterAshevilleUSA
  7. 7.Family Health CenterMountain Area Health Education CenterAshevilleUSA

Personalised recommendations