ArticleBMJ global health2026
How to design decision-support tools for primary healthcare using a human-centred design approach: the processes and experience of PHISICC in three Sub-Saharan countries.
Article in BMJ global health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Does a paper-based information system based on a human-centred design (PHISICC) reduce the time needed for reporting health data in Nigeria?BMC health services research · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionHealthcare delivery should be based on evidence-informed decisions in the clinical, public health, managerial and policy domains. Data are gathered at the point of care via routine health information systems (RHIS). The Paper-based Health Information Systems in Comprehensive Care (PHISICC) project shifted the paradigm from data collection to decision-making, especially decision-making at the point of care by the frontline health workers. We used a human-centred design (HCD) approach to re-design a RHIS that is responsive to the needs of frontline health workers.
methodsThe PHISICC research programme took place in Côte d'Ivoire, Mozambique and Nigeria and included the design and testing of a suite of paper-based RHIS tools. We report here the results of the HCD process. This was structured into three phases: (1) setup of co-creation group, (2) concept exploration and (3) detailed design phase.
resultsThe concept exploration included a brainstorming session and produced 'quick paper mock-ups', such as ideas to follow-up patients' healthcare. The output of this 'concept workshop' was a design hypothesis of the health information system. A follow-up workshop identified the healthcare areas to prioritise. The first round of design developed a version of several tools. The second round consisted of user testing in the three countries. Several iterations were implemented, incorporating health workers' feedback. Tools were pilot-tested and then produced and distributed for use in a cluster randomised controlled trial.
conclusionThe design phase of PHISICC combined HCD with clinical and public health domains. RHIS should be designed by qualified designers, content experts and users who focus on aiding decision-making of frontline health workers, applying a user-centred approach, from problem identification up to solution testing, multidisciplinarity, flexibility, teamwork and trust. We call for researchers, designers, healthcare providers, healthcare authorities and funding agencies to propose and pilot quality standards for the implementation and reporting of HCD in global health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.