Integrating human-centered design in public health data dashboards: lessons from the development of a data dashboard of sexually transmitted infections in New York State
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The increased availability of public data and accessible visualization technologies enhanced the popularity of public health data dashboards and broadened their audience from professionals to the general public. However, many dashboards have not achieved their full potential due to design complexities that are not optimized to users' needs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We used a 4-step human-centered design approach to develop a data dashboard of sexually transmitted infections for the New York State Department of Health: (1) stakeholder requirements gathering, (2) an expert review of existing data dashboards, (3) a user evaluation of existing data dashboards, and (4) an usability evaluation of the prototype dashboard with an embedded experiment about visualizing missing race and ethnicity data. RESULTS: Step 1 uncovered data limitations and software requirements that informed the platform choice and measures included. Step 2 yielded a checklist of general principles for dashboard design. Step 3 revealed user preferences that influenced the chart types and interactive features. Step 4 uncovered usability problems resulting in features such as prompts, data notes, and displaying imputed values for missing race and ethnicity data. DISCUSSION: Our final design was accepted by program stakeholders. Our modifications to traditional human-centered design methodologies to minimize stakeholders' time burden and collect data virtually enabled project success despite barriers to meeting participants in-person and limited public health agency staff capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: Our human-centered design approach and the final data dashboard architecture could serve as a template for designing public health data dashboards elsewhere.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.048 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".