Humanizing digital experiences in pharma through UX research

Digital experiences in healthcare are already shaping the future of the industry. So, what does this look like in practice for patients, healthcare professionals and pharmaceutical companies? It’s critical to leverage user experience (UX) research, strategy and design to build the digital tools and experiences in ways that make healthcare more human and patient centric.

We have developed digital experience strategy, tested digital user experiences and refined digital therapeutics for our roster of pharma clients. All through the lens of UX and Behavioral Science (BeSci). Through this work, we’ve heard some common misconceptions come up again and again, so let’s bust some UX research myths prevalent in the pharma industry!

Myth 1:

False! When it comes to UX testing, quality is often more important than quantity. There’s a sweet spot for high quality data from a smaller sample that leads to the best UX insights rather than lower quality data from a larger sample. This is especially true in the pharma and healthcare space, where sample sizes are naturally smaller due to an increased focus on micro launches and on rare disease states.

This is explained by the BeSci principle of naïve diversification. Humans hold an inherent bias that higher sample automatically means more certainty. It’s true that bigger samples allow for more statistical analysis with a higher degree of confidence, but it’s not needed for every phase of the product lifecycle. The time for higher sample research is when validating and designing around user needs and pain points. Once those needs are validated quantitatively, experience research through UX testing is much more fruitful when going deep versus broad.

Myth 2:

False! We think the risk lies in NOT running research. If you bypass research, especially in healthcare, you could miss big barriers or flawed UX that could lead to patient or HCP drop-off or reduced adherence to treatment. This reminds us of another common misconception – research doesn’t stop when the product launches. We need to continue testing and iterating once the product is live to make sure it continues to work and that we’re adapting as patient and HCP needs change.

This is explained by the BeSci principle of selective attention* that is best illustrated by the classic study where participants are asked to observe people playing basketball and entirely miss that there’s a gorilla walking in the background. When development teams are focused on launch and don’t want to be slowed down by any new learnings or issues that research might surface, we risk missing the gorilla.

Myth 3:

False! Or at least it should be false. We’ve seen that sluggish research is tied to structure and process more than it is to philosophy. Often consumer insights and UX are structurally different groups which creates a lag between when the design team creates and when the insights team can test. By infusing insights and UX practices together, patients and HCPs can be brought in at the right times during your agile or design sprint process, allowing insights to drive and iterate with the design.

This is explained by the classic BeSci challenge that organizational designers are very familiar with – sometimes the structures we organize in don’t enable the results we need. This BeSci principle is called status quo bias, which simply means humans prefer to follow the way things have always been done, rather than finding a new and better way forward.

There’s a misconception that catering to diverse needs and focusing on accessibility only helps a niche crowd. However, accessible design and UX benefit all, especially in the healthcare space. 

Myth 4:

False! There’s a misconception that catering to diverse needs and focusing on accessibility only helps a niche crowd. However, under the principles of universal design, accessible designs and user experiences actually benefit all, especially in the healthcare space with its more vulnerable populations. Today, the standard baseline for every website and digital tool is to be accessible.

Behavioral Scientists often worry about health literacy. The language used, information presented and complicated process around access to healthcare is intimidating and frustrating for average patients. This makes accessibility standards a vital consideration for individuals with a healthcare condition, a disability or lower health literacy.

Myth 5:

False! While UX includes all of the digital touchpoints your brand has with a patient or an HCP, you also need to think more broadly about the experience. Ultimately, you need a channel agnostic experience strategy that flows together to deliver on your brand’s promise. This includes digital assets, but also multimedia marketing materials, experiences patients or HCPs may have in person with your products and more.

People are heavily influenced by their environment. Whether physical or digital, Behavioral Scientists refer to the way stimuli and cues shape a customer’s experience and expectations as priming. A website and a waiting room can use calm, cooling colors and minimalist design to promote a sense of relaxation, boosting receptivity to brand messaging. Streamlining initiatives across experiences ensures consistency, reinforcing positive perceptions and trust.

Stay tuned for an upcoming article where we delve into tactical principles of engaging patients and healthcare professionals in digital research.

*Selective attention is more commonly known as intentional blindness. We’ve chosen to opt for a more inclusive BeSci term in this article.