HCD Activities to Support the Co-design of Program Prototypes
| Activity | Participants | Description | Contribution to Program Design |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engage with AG | National, provincial, and district DOH officials National and local implementing partners HIV-focused funders Local experts | Learning and listening workshop augmented with one-on-one meetings with selected members | – Learnings shared from previous successes and failures – Understand what AG members defined to be relevant academic or practical evidence based on lived experiences working with men – Explore each participating organization’s barriers, attitudes, motivations, and deliverables– The AG served as an expert resource with strategic checkpoints to change direction in real-time |
| Video ethnography | n=18 men; n=4 HCWs | 1-day video “follow-alongs” in communities | Increased empathy for men’s self-reported interactions with community members and the health care system |
| IDIs | n=58 men; n=64 HCWs | 2-hour IDIs in high HIV risk, hard-to-reach communities Journey mapping, a technique visualizing the health-seeking journey of at-risk men to deepen empathy and inform problem solving | – Provided men space and time to express feelings and insecurities that informed qualitative survey design– Highlighted logistical and emotional challenges of at-risk men in South Africa, drawing attention to friction points and barriers for confirmation via QS |
| Quantitative surveys | N=2,000 men aged 25–34 years; high school education or less | 1-hour tablet-based surveys with random sample of men across 5 districts in KwaZulu-Natal and 3 districts in Mpumalanga | Generated statistically significant data points for robust segmentation analysis |
| Segmentation of men | Cluster analysis via modeling, options evaluation, and profiling based on solutions | Generated 5 distinct segments of men who gave new insights to seasoned implementers, informed problem statements and recruitment into co-creation process | |
| How might we? challenges | n=32 workshop participants x 3 workshops | 6 “How might we?” questions: A positive, actionable question that frames the challenge—a prompt used in co-creation workshops to focus participants on a specific topic and generate ideas | 6 “How Might We?” focused brainstorming to solve very specific, granular issues facing 2 prioritized segments deemed most likely to produce the greatest impact across all 5 segments of men Generated ideas for strategies that would be responsive to the needs of 2 prioritized segments deemed most likely to produce the greatest impact across all 5 segments of men |
| Role playing | 3 professional actors | 5 monologues informed by segmentation and performed by professional actors from high-risk communities for overseas-based team members and advisory group | Significantly enhanced understanding of nuanced differences between 5 segments and helped inform the decision to focus prototyping on 2 specific segments of men |
| Experience design | 32 workshop participants x 3 workshops | Focusing on the range of different health care access and service delivery touch points to reveal key gaps in quality service delivery that might otherwise fall through the cracks | Bringing together men, HCW from clinics, and district DOH staff as equal partners to design, rethink assumptions, perceive impossibilities, and unlock new ideas |
| Co-creation prototyping | n=32 workshop participants × 3 workshops; participants consisted of men from 2 segments (recruited using an Ipsos-generated typing tool), HCWs, and DOH staff Field testing storyboarded prototypes | Co-designing a variety and range of tangible engagement actions with users and implementers via storyboarding, which are believed to solve a specific “How might we?” challenge | Produced 20 diverse prototype concepts which were refined to 15 simple-to-understand men’s engagement and service design proposals shared with men in communities and implementation partners for further evaluation |
| Rapid prototype feedback and iteration | 15 visualizations of new service designs and engagement initiatives were shared with a random sample of men across the project recruitment communities | Informed iterative design alterations to several of the prototypes, including changing the name of the coaches to Coach Mpilo | |
| Prototype evaluation/ prioritization | Prioritization ranking analysis based on 4 criteria: feasible/viable/desirable/speed to results | 4 prototypes emerged as pilot finalists; Coach Mpilo selected as the first fielded pilot | |
Abbreviations: AG, advisory group; DOH, Department of Health; HCD, human-centered design; IDI, in-depth interviews.