Simplifying treatment discussions for cancer patients and doctors

Overview

The IU Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center serves as a major hub for cancer research, with over 250 researchers contributing to innovative projects. One such initiative, the Cancer Care Roadmap project, provides digital tools to help navigate cancer care. I worked on the CLL(Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia) Mind Map tool, which supports decision-making for treatment options.

The users found the visualizations in the CLL Mind Map confusing, making it difficult for them to understand the treatment options. Despite resolving some interaction issues in the first design iteration, users continued to have difficulty with understanding. As a result, the focus shifted toward understanding communication practices between patients and doctors to simplify the CLL Mind Map.

CLL Mind Map: Optimizing Treatment Decision-Making

Cancer treatment decisions often feel overwhelming. Without effective communication, these decisions can significantly impact the treatment process. Clear communication is essential for both patients and healthcare providers to navigate these choices successfully.

The CLL Mind Map is a data visualization tool designed to assist in explaining treatment options to patients. It facilitates comparison and discussion by highlighting key factors, including treatment options, benefits, and risks, ultimately supporting informed decision-making.

Target users: Oncologists, nurses, patients, patient's families & caregivers

User Challenges with Complexity

During patient-doctor conversations, users often struggle with:

1. Understanding how treatment options compare in the graphical representation.

2. Grasping how treatment options relate to associated harms and benefits on the X and Y axes.

3. Knowing how the ranking of harms and benefits influences treatment decisions.

These challenges lead to confusion and unclear communication about the treatment journey.

The old version of the CLL Mind Map

Proposed Solution

Simplified Information Architecture for Better Discussions

The treatment discussion process now has 3 clear and easy-to-follow steps.

Step 1 - Benefits

The benefit cards enable patients to select their desired treatment options.

This approach helps set clear expectations and priorities, making it easier for healthcare providers to understand patients' goals.

Step 2 - Harms

The harms cards indicate the effects that the patients can endure from their treatment option.

It helps the healthcare providers to understand the patients' mindset about the risks they want to take for the treatment.

Step 3 - Review & treatment options

Before moving towards, a quick review of the cards that are previously selected is shown.

Based on the selected benefits and harms, the healthcare provider can recommended a treatment option for the patient that is suitable to their condition and needs.

Impact

80%
Increased User satisfaction

Users appreciated the simplified version of the solution, which made it easy to view and compare each option thoroughly.

30%
Increased Task Success Rate

With the structured steps, users were able to discuss each card more effectively, leading to clearer conversations.

60%
Conversion Rate in user testing

Users preferred the list visualization over the graphical representation due to its uniformity across all factors.

Roadmap to the solution

Long term vision

In the kickoff meeting, the client shared their business goal of introducing the CLL Mind Map into clinical practice to reach a broader audience.

Initial Approach

The prior lean UX approach did not work due to lack of user involvement. Since the old version was completely based on the scientific medical expertise.

Current Focus

Understand the communication practices between users and refine the CLL Mind Map to facilitate discussions, balancing medical accuracy with user-friendly design.

How did I put together this solution?

1. Requirement gathering

2. Project planning and defining milestones

3. User research - Interviews, testing and analysis

4. Synthesizing insights - Generating themes and personas

5. Ideation - Defining design goals and creating concepts

6. Wireframing & Prototyping

7. Concept validation testing

8. Final designs

Understanding our users

Qualitative research

Interviewed 12 healthcare providers and patients about their treatment decision making along with conducting the usability evaluation of the old version.

Competitive analysis

Analyzed 5 existing tools in the market that are used for treatment decision making. These tools did not facilitate discussions and gave general response about treatment options.

Affinity Mapping

The behavioral and attitudinal data was analyzed and organized into 12 key themes, which led to the creation of 2 user personas that informed the design goals.

Design Evolution

Design direction

Based on the research insights, 3 potential directions emerged for the project. It was decided to retain the original structure of benefits, harms, and treatment options, as these factors were identified as the most crucial for decision-making.

Defining design goals

Design goals focused on three key areas: reducing information overload, enhancing communication clarity through customization, and improving the association between the 3 core factors—benefits, harms, and treatment options.

Rapid Prototyping

To generate ideas quickly within a limited time, the team conducted weekly rapid prototyping sessions with the client team. These sessions helped to present design concepts and gather feedback, enabling multiple design iterations in the early stages.

Journey from Paper Sketches to Prototype

Testing the concept with users

Summary

After finalizing the design concept to move forward, a mid-fidelity prototype was created to test with users.

The prototype was tested with total 5 users: 3 healthcare providers and 2 patients.

Findings

1. More information on cards: Users wanted information to understand the card in-depth. An information icon is added that gives more information to the user.

2. Color gradient: Subtle color differentiation among the factors is necessary as long as the colors are not triggering like the bright red color in older version.

3. Up and down buttons: Ranking area had drag-drop option for which some users were concerned because the hand movement. It was replaced by simple up and down buttons to change position.

4. Pre-populated options: Doctors had to link the associated harms and benefits for each option which was tedious. So the association is done before with option of customization.

Your interest in my work makes my day!🧋