{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024288688410825817, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.554545454545455, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Common Shortcomings in Applying User-Centered Design for Digital Health

Reports on issues dealing with user-centered design (UCD) in digital healthcare. UCD is the focus of many teams developing digital health innovations, yet principles are not always effectively employed. We have identified several common ways that UCD principles fall short at all stages of the design process and steps to overcome those pitfalls. From connecting patients, providers, and caregivers, to remotely monitoring patient health outcomes, to aiding individuals selfmanaging their own conditions, technology is changing how we manage health. As technologies with potential application to healthcare have advanced, so has interest in pushing the envelope. As experienced researchers of digital health solutions, we have been researching, publishing, and reviewing grants in this space and working with our own multidisciplinary teams of engineers, computer scientists, clinicians, and patients. We have learned many lessons from our successes and failures, and those of others. On one hand, we have seen solutions change lives, but on the other, we have seen innovations make advancements in science and engineering but lack clinical utility. Sometimes these are true “hammers in search of nails,” where an innovation is inadequately applied to healthcare; other times they are misguided attempts at innovation, lacking proper understanding of clinical context.