Improving Healthcare Information Access

Evaluating and Improving Healthcare Information Access: A UX Research Study

Project Overview

The Ghana Ministry of Health Website is a key resource for citizens, local healthcare partners, and international organizations seeking public health policies, services, and updates. However, usability and navigation challenges make it difficult for users to access essential healthcare information efficiently.

This UX research study evaluated the website’s usability, information architecture, and accessibility using Nielsen’s 10 Usability Heuristics. The goal was to identify barriers to information access and provide evidence-based recommendations for an improved user experience.

Research Focus

A well-structured evaluation begins with a clear research focus, ensuring that the study is aligned with both user needs and usability principles. By defining the research scope and objectives, I established a framework that guided my analysis and informed actionable recommendations

Research Scope

Evaluating the Ministry of Health’s website from the perspective of its primary users: citizens, healthcare professionals, and foreign/local partners.

Assessing usability across desktop and mobile.

Reviewing key sections, including homepage, navigation menus, forms, reports, and publications.

A slide highlighting what currently works well on the Ghana Ministry of Health website. It lists key benefits such as offering health resources like policies and reports, providing up-to-date health news, and making contact details readily available. The slide features a screenshot of the Ministry of Health's homepage with officials holding policy documents at a launch event.

Key strengths of the Ghana Ministry of Health website

Research Objectives

I was guided by three (3) research objectives:

Identify usability issues based on Nielsen’s 10 Usability Heuristics.

Categorize issues based on severity levels (0-4) to prioritize fixes.

Provide actionable recommendations to enhance navigation, accessibility, and overall user experience.

Conducting the Evaluation

It is worth noting that evaluating a digital experience requires more than just identifying flaws—it’s about uncovering usability breakdowns that impact user efficiency, satisfaction, and access to critical information.

Thus, my heuristic evaluation followed a structured approach based on Jakob Nielsen’s 10 Usability Heuristics to reveal key usability challenges and inform actionable improvements.

A slide displaying Nielsen’s 10 Usability Heuristics, each represented with an icon. The heuristics include visibility of system status, match between system and real world, user control and freedom, consistency and standards, error prevention, recognition rather than recall, flexibility and efficiency of use, aesthetic and minimalistic design, help users with errors, and help and documentation.

🔶 The Evaluation Process

To ensure a comprehensive review, I took on the perspective of both first-time and returning users, navigating the site as they would while searching for essential healthcare resources. This process unfolded through the following steps:

An icon of a directional signpost with multiple arrows pointing in different directions, symbolizing website navigation.

1️⃣ Navigating the Website

Before documenting specific issues, I immersed myself in the user journey, interacting with key sections such as:

The homepage and main navigation menu.

Reports, policies, and other essential content.

Contact and inquiry submission forms.

Search and information retrieval features (or lack thereof).

This hands-on engagement helped reveal friction points in real-world use cases.

2️⃣ Identifying Heuristic Violations

As I interacted with the site, I mapped usability issues against Jakob Nielsen’s 10 Usability Heuristics, ensuring each problem was categorized under a well-defined usability principle.

This step provided a structured, research-driven analysis of the site’s usability challenges.

An icon of a checklist on a document with a pen, symbolizing the process of recording observations and findings.

An icon of a magnifying glass, symbolizing the process of identifying heuristic violations during the evaluation.

3️⃣ Documenting Observations

To support my findings with clear evidence, I:

Captured annotated screenshots highlighting usability flaws.

Noted where and when issues occurred during the user journey.

Described the impact of each issue on task efficiency and user frustration.

4️⃣ Assigning Severity Ratings

Not all usability issues have the same level of impact. To prioritize fixes effectively, I assessed each issue based on:

📌 Impact – How much does the issue hinder the user experience?

📌 Frequency – How often are users likely to encounter the issue?

📌 Persistence – Can users recover from the issue, or does it block them entirely?

Each issue was then assigned a severity rating from 0 (No Issue) to 4 (Critical Issue):

A table outlining usability issue severity levels from 0 to 4, ranging from 'No Issue' to 'Critical Usability Issue.' Each level includes a definition and the corresponding action needed, such as fixing minor issues if time allows and addressing critical issues immediately.

5️⃣ Categorizing Issues by Severity

Once severity ratings were assigned, the next step was categorizing issues strategically to ensure that high-impact problems were addressed first. This structured approach helped prioritize:

✅ Critical (Severity 4) issues, such as the absence of a search function, which severely hindered information findability.

✅ Major (Severity 3) usability breakdowns, like inconsistent navigation labels, which disrupted the browsing experience.

✅ Minor (Severity 1-2) issues, which, while not blocking, contributed to overall inefficiencies and user frustration.

A table categorizing heuristic violations, listing issues such as 'No loading indicator when navigating between pages' under 'Visibility of System Status,' 'Icons lack labels' under 'Recognition Rather Than Recall,' and 'No search function' under 'Flexibility and Efficiency of Use,' each with an assigned severity level.

By integrating heuristic principles, severity rankings, and structured categorization, I was able to uncover key usability issues and prioritize fixes that would have the highest impact on user experience.

This methodical approach ensured that UX Optimization Recommendations were rooted in data rather than assumptions, leading to targeted, meaningful improvements that enhance user accessibility and overall satisfaction.

Overview of Nielsen’s 10 Usability Heuristics

Usability issue severity scale and corresponding actions

Examples of heuristic violations categorized by severity

Icon representing the website navigation process

Icon representing heuristic evaluation and issue identification

Icon representing documentation of evaluation findings

Key Insights from the Heuristic Evaluation

The Heuristic Evaluation of the Ghana Ministry of Health website revealed several usability challenges that impact the efficiency, accessibility, and overall user experience.

A visual representation of five key usability issues affecting the Ministry of Health website, including Findability Issues, Inconsistent Navigation, Poor Feedback Mechanisms, Cluttered Homepage Design, and Lack of Error Prevention & Recovery.

Five major usability issues identified on the Ministry of Health website

🔸 Findability Issues – The absence of a search function makes it difficult for users to quickly locate key healthcare resources, leading to frustration and inefficiency.

🔸 Inconsistent Navigation – Varying menu labels (e.g., "Publications" vs. "Reports") create confusion, making users second-guess where to find relevant documents.

🔸 Poor Feedback Mechanisms – Users receive no system feedback when submitting forms or navigating between pages, leaving them unsure if their actions were successful.

🔸Cluttered Homepage Design – The homepage overloads users with information, making it hard to identify priority content such as emergency health services and policy updates.

🔸 Lack of Error Prevention & Recovery – The website lacks form validation, meaning users can submit incomplete forms without prompts to correct errors, reducing the effectiveness of communication channels.

These insights informed a set of structured recommendations aimed at improving the website's usability.

Recommendations for Improvement

Based on the insights gathered during the evaluation, the following UX Optimization Recommendations should be prioritized:

1️⃣ Implement a Robust Search Feature

A well-designed search function with filters will enhance information findability and accessibility.

A matrix showing the effort-impact analysis of implementing a site-wide search with filters. It is categorized as a high-effort, high-impact improvement to enhance findability.

Effort vs. impact analysis of implementing a site-wide search

A matrix evaluating the standardization of menu labels for clarity and consistency. It is categorized as a low-effort, high-impact improvement.

2️⃣ Standardize Navigation & Labeling

Ensuring consistent menu structures and terminology will reduce confusion and create a more predictable user journey.

Effort vs. impact analysis of standardizing menu labels

3️⃣ Introduce System Feedback & Loading Indicators

Providing real-time feedback, such as confirmation messages for form submissions and loading indicators during navigation, will enhance user confidence and efficiency.

A matrix analyzing the addition of loading indicators and confirmation messages to improve user feedback. It is categorized as a low-effort, high-impact change.

Effort vs. impact analysis of adding loading indicators

A matrix evaluating the redesign of the homepage structure to improve information hierarchy. It is categorized as a high-effort, high-impact improvement.

4️⃣ Refine Homepage Content & Visual Hierarchy

A more structured and decluttered homepage will guide users toward key information without overwhelming them.

Effort vs. impact analysis of redesigning the homepage

5️⃣ Improve Form Validation & Error Messaging

Implementing real-time input validation will prevent users from submitting incorrect or incomplete forms, improving communication reliability.

A matrix assessing the implementation of real-time input validation for better user feedback. It is categorized as a low-effort, high-impact improvement.

Effort vs. impact analysis of implementing real-time input validation.

In conclusion, this structured prioritization ensures that quick, high-impact changes are addressed first, while more resource-intensive improvements are planned effectively.

Intended Impact

The recommendations proposed in this evaluation aim to:

🚀 Enhance Access to Healthcare Information – Implementing a search function and improving navigation are projected to reduce time spent searching for critical health resources by up to 50%, ensuring that citizens, healthcare professionals, and stakeholders can quickly access essential content.

🚀 Increase User Confidence & Engagement – Adding real-time feedback mechanisms and improving form validation is expected to decrease user errors by 30-40%, leading to a more seamless and reliable interaction with the platform.

My Learnings

This evaluation provided valuable insights not only about the Ministry of Health’s website but also about conducting heuristic evaluations in real-world settings. Key takeaways include:

🔸 The Power of Simplicity in UX Research – Even without user interviews, applying heuristic principles and usability frameworks can uncover high-impact issues that drastically affect user experience.

🔸 Severity Ratings Drive Actionable Priorities – By categorizing issues based on impact, frequency, and persistence, I was able to communicate usability problems in a way that prioritizes immediate fixes while outlining long-term enhancements.