No abstract

Reflections from 3 global health programs using humancentered design (HCD) offer 3 categories of lessons for those considering similar approaches: n Planning while considering the needs of both traditional global health and HCD approaches n Engaging key stakeholders to build understanding, alignment, and buy-in from the outset n Applying approaches differently from the way both designers and global health actors are accustomed to working to promote long-term program sustainability and learning Key Implications nIf implemented appropriately, integrating HCD into global health programming can produce a virtuous cycle between co-creation, stakeholder buy-in, and quality of outputs. The more that programs engage stakeholders in an inclusive, participatory process, the greater their continued willingness and motivation. This in turn allows for more iteration and higher quality, better-tailored outputs that are more likely to be sustainably used and scaled. n To engender this virtuous cycle, programs that incorporate an HCD approach will need to be scoped differently than traditional global health programs (e.g., more flexible timelines; dedicated budget for implementation and capacity building, etc.). n Because stakeholders may perceive a higher risk of failure with a new approach, proponents of HCD are faced with a substantial burden of evidence to persuade actors to consider its benefits. However, traditional global health actors should consider alternative approaches to measuring HCD's contributions, including perceived end user value.