We conducted a mixed-method study involving a series of remote, individual interviews and a longitudinal online diary study with participants to gather detailed qualitative insights into patients’ treatment behaviors, preferences, use environments, and how patients use connected devices and applications in their daily disease management.

We conducted interviews with subject matter experts (SMEs) from the manufacturer’s organization, as well as contextual inquiries in the field with clinical teams to understand known opportunities for improvement and current challenges.
We used these insights to create a number of simulated-use scenarios and conducted lab-based research to refine and prioritize design opportunities.

Before one-on-one interviews with potential users, our team conducted a heuristic evaluation of the instructions for use. We then completed a simulated-environment usability study to collect data that guided revisions and updates to the instructional materials. We then conducted a post-iterative study where we collected further feedback on the product and redesigned instructional materials.

Our team conducted a series of offline (task-based) and online (live) studies with call center reps. Our client then evaluated the expected impact pre- and post-launch of the application. We collected time, motion, error data, and qualitative input.

We spoke with current users of in-window AC units during in-lab research; testing focused on setup of the connected system and use of application features.

Our team conducted contextual inquiries in the field with service technicians as they processed requests for installs, service, and repairs to identify opportunities to enhance efficiency and effectiveness at point of service. We also observed customer service representatives (CSRs) in the call center with an eye towards improvement at the service request level and led collaborative design sessions with the CSRs to identify workarounds that could be translated into system improvements.

Pain point identification and innovation involved a mixed-method approach. We conducted remote in-depth interviews with users across platforms. And then invited participants back to engage in co-creation sessions in triad sessions.
Co-creating concepts that do not yet exist is challenging. Our approach captured insights from users who had time to reflect, which leveraged the benefits of a mixed-method approach.

100 participants with varying degrees of vision impairment were recruited for this two-phase study.
During contextual interviews, focus groups, and usability testing, participants completed phone tasks using 3 different phones and tested a voice-enabled prototype. Participants were given an opportunity to discuss accessibility issues related to current technology.

We conducted a remote mobile usability study to evaluate the trip planning process. The remote lab we designed enabled us to watch participants use their own devices and screen capture each interaction.

For the US portion of this international study, we recruited MS patients for 60 minute in-person sessions. Participants were asked to complete a series of tasks with guidance from the application. After their attempts, participants were asked to evaluate the ease of understanding the application’s instructions and user interface.

We observed participants using a prototype of the device in a consumer kitchen lab environment. We assessed the users’ ability to set up and connect the appliance to a mobile device, use the mobile device to control the appliance, as well as their reaction to error screens. We designed this in-lab test to support other streams of research being utilized by the manufacturer.

Our research approach included a certified diabetes educator who administered a 2-hour group training session with participants. After a minimum decay period of 24 hours, we observed participants using a non-functioning prototype.

Because we really needed to get ‘in their heads’ we took a qualitative approach. Ten gamers participated in hour-long, in-person in-depth interviews (IDIs); half of the participants began their journey in the browser-based games store while the other half began their journey using the desktop client games store. During the IDIs, we posed tasks and scenarios and captured rich feedback.

We conducted 90-min individual interviews with specialty healthcare providers. Participants interacted with a clickable prototype of both the desktop and mobile websites. In addition to testing the usability of the site, the various types of content were also evaluated.

We conducted 60-minute remote usability sessions with adult patients and caregivers throughout the United States. Participants were asked to interact with the app to evaluate its ease of understanding and presentation of relevant content. We observed participants as they performed key tasks and collected their feedback as they interacted with the application.

We interviewed more than 500 health care professionals from the US, UK, and Ireland, ensuring variety in our sample collection.
To learn how HCPs might interact with the system, we asked them to naturally request patient data in their own words, collecting both text and voice samples of various scenarios for each participant.

We conducted simultaneous in-lab sessions with both pharmacists and pharmacy technicians. They each performed their normal roles in a simulated pharmacy setting we designed. Our research sessions utilized simulated pharmacy shelves with realistic distractor cartons and prescription mock-ups.

Drawing on our expertise in user interface design and usability along with support from our UX researcher, who was trained by the client on how cyberthreats are investigated, we evaluated the various modules and features available to end users of the software. We utilized a rapid, timed approach to accurately reflect a real-world use scenario.

We recruited nurse educators who routinely train patients to use infusion pumps and invited them to share their insights and unique experience during 90-minute remote sessions. We evaluated their feedback about how they structure their educational sessions and about how training needs are determined.

We conducted in-lab testing to determine how much feedback and involvement was acceptable and desired by the user. Using graphical cards, users identified the ideal flow to receive, store, administer, and dispose of the device. One month later, additional testing with a smaller group of new and previous testers refined the user flow based on feedback from the first session, delving deeper into features, drawing on their current journey to determine how best to utilize connectivity.

We employed a multi-tactic approach to obtain feedback on experiences with current cars and reactions to the test model. Prior to fieldwork, we had participants complete homework that included taking pictures of various aspects of their current car and completing a survey. Our research sessions included a focus group discussion followed by individual stationary in-car interviews. We recruited up to eight participants for each focus group and chose two participants to move on to the in-car interviews.
We collected qualitative feedback and comments, behavioral observation, and ratings. Sessions were conducted in English and simultaneously interpreted into the client’s native language for both live observers and session recordings.

Our team provided a broad overview of how feedback from end users should be leveraged early and often during product development, and how that feedback should be integrated into use specifications, task analyses, risk analyses, and the overall human factors plan.

Three experts were chosen by HFES to design and deliver a two-day training, including Korey Johnson (Bold Insight), Dr. Anthony Andre, and Michael Wiklund. The team presented a series of modules that included the science behind HF, such as human perception, cognition, memory, and learning, as well as best practices in root cause analysis and dealing with the biases associated with subjective data.

We conducted one-on-one, in-depth interviews with participants currently taking the medication in pill form. We asked participants to complete a simulated-use scenario using the prototype device. We collected feedback on ease of use, physical attributes, need for instructions, and overall acceptability of the device. We also captured participant data around the new liquid formulation, including appearance, taste, and color.

We took a multi-method approach to the study. We first visited orthopedic surgeons’ offices to observe current practices while they administered intraarticular injections into the knees of patients, view the spaces in which they work, and talk to staff that assist with the injection process. After the site visits were completed, we conducted one-on-one interviews with HCPs to further learn about their routines with intraarticular injections, their thoughts on injecting to other sites, and opinions on reducing the total number of injections needed for a full dose. We concluded the sessions with the HCPs administering a simulated injection with a prototype syringe into a model of a knee and providing high-level directional feedback for future development.

Participants joined one-on-one remote video-conferencing sessions from their own kitchens. Participants were asked to complete activities and react to renderings of prospective VBL options. These sessions, each lasting 90 minutes, facilitated in-depth questioning and allowed participants’ opinions and preferences to be fully explored.

We conducted the study at a hospital where we asked nurses to perform tasks typically executed on an EHR under simulated conditions. The nurses then provided feedback on a post-test questionnaire for qualitative and quantitative data.

We tested the redesigned device with a surgical team trained on the current system.
We conducted in-person testing in an outpatient clinic, in the surgical team’s environment. We evaluated system setup, tool programming, and use during a simulated surgery.

We conducted remote exploratory interviews with patients and healthcare providers, using their journeys from diagnosis to treatment to guide the development of potential interfaces. Patient recruiting included adults and minor participants (aged 5-17) with amblyopia, a type of visual impairment; some also had additional diagnoses, such as epilepsy or cerebral palsy, which impacted their mobility and cognitive abilities.

We asked current and past users of the drug delivery pump to evaluate images and videos of three new designs. We identified pain points and avenues for improvement by asking users about specific instances where they struggled with their current carrying accessory.

We utilized one-on-one moderated usability tests in a simulated-use environment. Our lab provided items commonly found in a clinical setting including a sink, personal protective equipment, trash bins, and cleaning and disinfectant solutions. Participants were instructed to do what they would do in their own practice to prepare the device for their next patient. Instructional materials were provided, but participants were not specifically directed to use them.

With transferees, our team conducted:
In-home contextual inquiries to understand existing logistics and how it could translate into an app,A multi-week longitudinal online diary study outlining the relocation journey to determine how to enhance the process,Focus groups to gather design feedback.With relocation specialists, we conducted conference intercept research to understand barriers to app adoption.

Our learnings from each study in the research program fed into the next, and our cohesive body of research informed all design aspects for the new drug delivery system.

Our research focused on market dynamics, technological advancement, and consumer need. In partnership with The Office of Experience, we identified and explored seven key opportunity spaces with high growth potential in both the mobile phone and wearable AR markets.

Both studies conducted one-on-one, in-lab usability sessions with three different groups of specialized HCPs using prototypes of the portal. Our ability to adapt and be flexible, debriefing in real time, was key to successfully accomplishing the study goals: When we discovered that session time was inadequate to collect the desired data, we debriefed after the sessions to refocus testing for the following day. We already had clear trends, so it was possible to adjust the protocol and moderators guide to cover all of the manufacturer’s objectives.

For this exploratory research, we simulated at-home environments in a lab setting, including a mock living room, bedroom, and bathroom. Set up in the same test space, we used room dividers, furniture, sink, and mirrors to make it feel as realistic as possible. The goal was to encourage the pediatric patient and caregiver to do what they do at home with the medical system and accompanying mobile app. They simulated the entire process to interact with the app and medication system. Test preparations unique to this study included informal interviews with child specialists familiar with this population to ensure the lab setup would make the participants feel comfortable; modifications included stress relief balls, sensory bin, and wall signs. This specialized population also required we have an on-site clinician throughout the test sessions.

During one-on-one usability sessions, we asked participants to complete key tasks on the mobile application prototypes. We followed up by having participants compare specific features on the two prototypes. We collected feedback on first impressions, feature discoverability, usability, and general user experience.

We asked current product owners and new users to react to high-quality renderings and use the product prototypes in a consumer kitchen lab environment. We gave participants access to all tools and ingredients they have in a home kitchen and we observed them navigating the process.

The validation study included HCP training, done by our on-staff RN to demonstrate techniques, a 24-hour decay, and a 60-min validation session, during which participants had to prepare and administer two doses of the kit.

We recruited representative members of surgical teams to conduct simulated implantations in porcine subjects at a simulation lab managed by a local hospital.
Our researchers observed the simulated implantations to capture the surgical team dynamics and interactions with the revised implantation procedures.

We conducted global, remote, moderated usability tests with a medium-fidelity prototype across two weeks. Thirty participants consisting of engineers, quality assurance, marketing managers, and product managers were recruited from small to medium size companies in the Americas, Europe, and Asia.

All of our participants were daily users of smart speakers and some had previously used their smart speaker to make purchases. We asked them to share their opinions and evaluate several unique prototypes.
To encourage deeper discussion, we recruited pairs who were familiar with each other for dyad sessions. These sessions were followed with larger focus groups to uncover additional common insights.

Our team conducted expert evaluations of the app on three device platforms. On each platform, we completed tasks to evaluate the issues of concern to our client. After reviewing specification documents, we created a prototype to illustrate the optimal page flow.

Throughout this research, the goals were to evaluate the new system for safety, effectiveness, and unforeseen use risks, think through touchpoints and pain points of updated releases to ensure this is accounted for in the new system, consider alternate designs to make both versions of the system more usable and understood, and bridge patients to the new app (training, integration).
To reach this specialized patient population, we tested in multiple locations across the country, both in English- and Spanish-speaking in-lab sessions. We also utilized our on-staff RN to advise on considerations during testing for this protected patient population to ensure we approached testing scenarios and environments in a way that participants will understand and respond to. One part of the research required clinician-assisted training to simulate real-world training of the system.