A Unified Framework for Human Centered Design of a Substance Use, Abuse, and Recovery Support System

  • Benjamin SchooleyEmail author
  • Sue Feldman
  • Bradley Tipper
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1205)


This research explores the analysis, design, and testing of a software application to support opioid peer specialists working to assist substance users, abusers, those in recovery, and their families. The paper presents a framework integrating best practice approaches from Design Science Research, Community Based Participatory Research, and human centered and user experience design principles for the purpose of: 1) guiding community based, goal-directed software design, and 2) building and evaluating a substance use, abuse, and recovery software application. Focus group findings from 33 participants suggest that using the framework enables alignment between human centered system requirements; personal, family, and community-based program goal achievement; and local/state population health directives. End user feedback indicates that the software application design addresses specific human interaction needs for the complex high-stakes context of opioid use, abuse, and recovery.


Human factors Human-centered design Design science Community based participatory research Substance abuse eHealth Health informatics 



This project is funded through a Community Health Scholars Grant from UAB. The UAB Center for the Study of Community Health (CSCH), one of 26 Prevention Research Centers (PRCs) designated nationally by CDC, is an initiative to encourage community-based participatory research (CBPR) by UAB faculty. Additional funding is provided through AL State Medicaid.


  1. 1.
    Kuehn, B.: Declining opioid prescriptions. JAMA 321(8), 736 (2019). Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Kolodny, A., Frieden, T.R.: Ten steps the federal government should take now to reverse the opioid addiction epidemic. JAMA 318(16), 1537–1538 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    Gullo, S., Galavotti, C., Kuhlmann, A.S., Msiska, T., Hastings, P., Marti, C.N.: Effects of a social accountability approach, CARE’s Community Score Card, on reproductive health-related outcomes in Malawi: a cluster-randomized controlled evaluation. PLoS ONE 12(2), e0171316 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sudhinaraset, M., Afulani, P., Diamond-Smith, N., Bhattacharyya, S., Donnay, F., Montagu, D.: Advancing a conceptual model to improve maternal health quality: the person-centered care framework for reproductive health equity. Gates Open Res. 1, 1–14 (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Komro, K., Perry, C.L., Williams, C.L., Stigler, M., Farbakhsh, K., Veblen-Mortenson, S.: How did project Northland reduce alcohol use among young adolescents? Analysis of mediating variables. Health Educ. Res. 16(1), 59–70 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shaw, R.A., Rosati, M.J., Salzman, P., Coles, C.R., Mcgeary, C.: Effects on adolescent ATOD behaviors and attitudes of a 5-year community partnership. Eval. Program Plann. 20(3), 307–313 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tembo, F.: Rethinking Social Accountability in Africa: Lessons from the Mwananchi Programme. Overseas Development Institute, London (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tipirneni, R., Vickery, K.D., Ehlinger, E.P.: Accountable communities for health: moving from providing accountable care to creating health. Ann. Family Med. 13(4), 367–369 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M.A., Chatterjee, S.: A design science research methodology for information systems research. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 24(3), 45–77 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
    Israel, B.A., Schulz, A.J., Parker, E.A., Becker, A.B.: Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Ann. Rev. Public Health 19(1), 173–202 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Burns, J., Cooke, D., Schweidler, C.: A short guide to community based participatory action research. Advancement Project – Healthy City Community Research Lab, December 2011. Accessed 7 June 2019
  17. 17.
    Adikari, S., Mcdonald, C., Campbell, J.: Little design up-front: a design science approach to integrating usability into agile requirements engineering. In: Book Little Design up-Front: A Design Science Approach to Integrating Usability into Agile Requirements Engineering, pp. 549–558. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Adikari, S., Mcdonald, C., Lynch, N.: Design science-oriented usability modelling for software requirements. In: Book Design Science Oriented Usability Modelling for Software Requirements, pp. 373–382. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tuunanen, T., Peffers, K., Gengler, C.E.: Wide Audience Requirements Engineering (Ware): A Practical Method and Case Study (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benjamin Schooley
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sue Feldman
    • 2
  • Bradley Tipper
    • 2
  1. 1.Health Information Technology Program, College of Engineering and ComputingUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.Graduate Programs in Health Informatics, Department of Health Services Administration, School of Health ProfessionsUniversity of Alabama - BirminghamBirminghamUSA

Personalised recommendations