04 / Case Study — UX Research

Drug Guide

Two-phase research — surveys, then video interviews — that put real patient voices at the center of an interactive drug guide for Arthritis.org.

My Role: Research Design · Interviews · Client Presentation
Client · Year: Arthritis Foundation · 2024
Methods: Quantitative survey + qualitative video
Deliverable: Findings → wireframes → handoff

01 — Overview

The Arthritis Foundation wanted to build an interactive drug guide for Arthritis.org — and, importantly, wanted patient feedback baked into the design from the start.

I designed and ran the research end to end, then turned it into design recommendations the team could act on with confidence.

Arthritis Foundation Drug Guide Redesign — project title slide — The Drug Guide research — patient insight for a medication guide on Arthritis.org.

02 — The Challenge

Understand patients before designing for them

People managing chronic conditions make real decisions about their medications, often under stress. Getting a drug guide right means understanding how they actually research their drugs — their habits, their language, their anxieties — before a single screen is designed.

The challenge was to gather that understanding rigorously, and to make participants comfortable enough to share it honestly.

03 — Approach

A two-phase method that warms people up

The structure was the insight: give people a chance to reflect before they talk, and the conversation gets far richer.

1Designed two phases. First a self-paced survey with quantitative questions about drug-research habits, then individual video interviews for qualitative depth.
2Sequenced it on purpose. The survey “warms up” participants’ minds, so the live interviews are easier, more comfortable, and more revealing.
3Ran interviews with context in view. Over Zoom, using Airtable’s Form, Grid, and Row Detail views to see each participant’s survey answers inline and build on them in real time.
4Synthesized into direction. Analyzed through information visualization, plus competitive analysis and an accessibility review, then translated it into wireframe proposals.

The user survey — phase one, self-paced quantitative questions — The two phases — a self-paced survey (left) that warmed participants up for the qualitative video interviews (right).

A qualitative video interview over Zoom — phase two — The two phases — a self-paced survey (left) that warmed participants up for the qualitative video interviews (right).

04 — The Outcome

Evidence, packaged to build from

I delivered a stakeholder presentation that carried the whole story: interview analytics, competitive annotations, a heuristic evaluation, the key takeaways, and wireframe proposals grounded in what patients actually said. Instead of guessing at a sensitive healthcare feature, the team got a clear, evidence-based starting point.

The key finding: the two-phase structure let participants reflect before they spoke — producing far richer qualitative insight than interviews alone, without losing the quantitative signal.

Bar chart — which formats participants find helpful when learning about a drug: articles score highest (about 38 of 40), then infographics (31), tools (19), video (17), chatbot and audio (about 15) — What patients want to read — each format scored 1–10 by all four participants (max 40). **Articles and infographics ran away with it;** chatbots and audio trailed. In their words: “Interpreting information at my own pace is the priority” and “Formatting as a scientific paper is important.”

Key takeaways slide — five findings on patient beliefs and habits: reliable sources matter, up-to-date info is critical, manufacturer sites require caution, online communities can be problematic, and quantitative data is valued over anecdotal evidence — Findings, turned into direction — five takeaways on how patients think and behave (left), translated into eight proposed features (right).

Analysis of the existing printed drug guide — Grounded in the existing printed guide (left) and patient insight, the deliverable landed as annotated wireframe proposals (right).

Annotated wireframe proposals for the drug guide with filtering — Grounded in the existing printed guide (left) and patient insight, the deliverable landed as annotated wireframe proposals (right).

05 — Impact

Richer insight, ready to design

A method built for honesty, and a package built to hand off — so a high-stakes healthcare feature could move forward on evidence instead of assumptions.

Methods combined — quantitative + qualitative

In-depth patient interviews

Proposed features designed

06 — Reflection

Good research isn’t about collecting data — it’s about making a decision easier for the people who have to build the thing. The win here wasn’t a deck; it was a team that could move forward on evidence instead of assumptions.