by Format-3

Share article

Why Invest in UX Research for Healthtech Success

Faced with constant change across Canadian and American healthcare, product managers know that technology alone rarely keeps users engaged. The complexity of digital health tools, from telemedicine platforms in rural Ontario to patient apps in New York, exposes how real-world needs differ from design assumptions. By grounding decisions in user experience research focused on understanding user perceptions and responses, your team uncovers what truly drives engagement, avoids costly missteps, and builds credibility with both clinicians and patients.

Table of Contents

• Defining UX Research In Healthcare
• Major Types And Methods Of UX Research
• How UX Research Drives Engagement
• Compliance, Safety And Ethical Standards
• Financial Impact And Cost Efficiency
• Avoiding Common UX Pitfalls In Healthtech

Key Takeaways

Point: Importance of Contextual Research | Details: Conducting UX research in healthcare requires understanding user interactions in real-world settings, as context significantly influences usability and effectiveness.

Point: Diverse Research Methods | Details: Employ a mix of qualitative and quantitative techniques tailored to the specific stage of product development and the user group to uncover key insights.

Point: User-Centred Design | Details: Building designs around genuine user needs and motivations enhances trust and engagement, which is critical for adoption in healthtech applications.

Point: Ethical Standards and Compliance | Details: Maintaining ethical and regulatory standards is crucial when conducting UX research, as it ensures participant safety and research credibility in healthcare environments.

Defining UX Research in Healthcare

UX research in healthcare is far more complex than simply asking users what they think about an interface. At its core, user experience research focuses on understanding user perceptions and responses that emerge from interacting with, or even anticipating the use of, a product, system, or service. In healthcare specifically, this means examining how clinicians, patients, administrators, and carers actually interact with digital health tools during moments that matter. A nurse rushing through shift changes, a patient managing a chronic condition at home, a doctor reviewing test results—these real-world scenarios form the foundation of meaningful UX research.

What makes healthcare UX research distinctly high-stakes is the nature of the work itself. Unlike researching an entertainment app where poor design causes frustration, healthcare applications can directly impact clinical outcomes, patient safety, and workflow efficiency. When a product management team at a healthtech startup conducts UX research, they’re not just optimising for satisfaction—they’re gathering evidence about whether their tool genuinely helps users accomplish critical health-related tasks without introducing errors or friction. User experience theories and frameworks provide essential scaffolding here, helping teams navigate fragmented literature and the varied contexts across different healthcare settings. A telemedicine platform operates differently in a rural clinic than in an urban hospital network, and effective UX research accounts for these contextual differences.

For product managers building in healthcare, grasping what UX research actually is requires moving beyond generic usability testing. It encompasses multiple research methodologies—ethnographic studies observing clinicians in their natural environment, structured interviews with patients about their pain points, surveys measuring usability and satisfaction, think-aloud protocols where users verbalise their thoughts whilst navigating an interface, and analysing real usage data to spot where people abandon workflows. The methodological rigor matters. Selecting the right instruments and methods isn’t arbitrary; it’s informed by clear research questions aligned with your product stage and user population. Early-stage startups might prioritise discovery interviews with potential users to understand unmet needs. More mature products might conduct A/B testing on specific interface elements or run longitudinal studies tracking how clinicians adapt to new workflows over time.

What separates strategic UX research from superficial feedback gathering is intentionality. You’re not collecting opinions; you’re building evidence that informs design decisions, validates assumptions, and reveals gaps between how you believe users will behave and how they actually behave. In healthcare, where regulatory compliance and clinical efficacy are non-negotiable, this evidence becomes part of your product’s credibility foundation. It demonstrates that your team considered real user needs during development, not just technical feasibility.

Pro tip: When scoping your first UX research project, start by clearly defining which user group you’re studying (patients with Type 2 diabetes, primary care nurses, clinic administrators) and what specific problem or workflow you’re investigating. Narrower scope means deeper insights and clearer findings that actually drive product decisions.

Major Types and Methods of UX Research

The methods you choose for UX research depend heavily on your constraints, timeline, and what you actually need to learn. Product managers often think “usability testing” covers everything, but that’s only one tool in a much larger toolkit. The reality is that methodological approaches vary significantly between academic research environments and what happens in startup product teams. Academics typically run controlled experiments with strict protocols and theoretical frameworks guiding every decision. Industry teams, especially in healthtech startups, operate differently. You need answers fast. You’re working with limited budgets. You can’t always recruit perfect participant samples. So the methods you use tend to be more flexible, pragmatic, and rapid. This doesn’t make them less rigorous; it just makes them contextually appropriate.

Let’s break down the core methods you’ll actually use. User interviews involve one-on-one conversations with your target users about their current workflows, pain points, and needs. These work brilliantly in healthcare when you’re trying to understand why a GP abandons a referral tool halfway through, or how a patient actually manages multiple medications despite what the interface assumes. You’re listening for the story behind the behaviour. Usability testing puts real users in front of your product (or prototype) and observes them attempting specific tasks. A nurse tries to document patient vitals using your app. A clinic administrator attempts to generate a report. You watch where they pause, click the wrong button, or express frustration. This reveals gaps between how you designed the interface and how people actually use it. Surveys gather quantitative data from larger populations. If you’ve already narrowed down your interface problems, a survey measuring task completion rates or satisfaction scores across hundreds of users provides statistical confidence that your changes actually matter. Field research means studying users in their actual work environment. You might shadow clinicians during their shift, observing how they currently document care or collaborate with colleagues. This context is invaluable because healthcare workflows are messy and interrupted. What works in a controlled usability lab sometimes fails when a pager goes off and priorities shift.

To clarify how core UX research methods differ in healthcare, consider this side-by-side summary:

Research Method: User Interviews | Typical Use Case: Explore user motivations | Data Type: Qualitative | Key Advantage: Deep context, personal insight

Research Method: Usability Testing | Typical Use Case: Test interface and tasks | Data Type: Observational | Key Advantage: Reveals workflow bottlenecks

Research Method: Surveys | Typical Use Case: Measure trends/attitudes | Data Type: Quantitative | Key Advantage: Large sample, scalable results

Research Method: Field Research | Typical Use Case: Observe real environments | Data Type: Contextual | Key Advantage: Exposes genuine workflow challenges

Matching Methods to Your Research Questions

The key is matching your method to what you’re actually trying to answer. Early in product development, when you’re still validating whether a problem exists and exploring potential solutions, discovery interviews dominate. You’re not testing anything yet; you’re learning. Mid-stage, when you have prototypes or early versions, moderated usability testing helps you catch critical design issues before full launch. Later, when you’re optimising existing features, analytics reviews and A/B testing reveal which variations actually perform better in production.

In healthcare contexts, many teams combine methods. You might run five structured interviews with emergency department nurses to understand their workflow, then create a prototype based on those insights, then test that prototype with ten nurses using think-aloud protocols where they verbalise their thoughts. Finally, you measure the adoption rate and error rates once you launch to real users. This layered approach gives you both depth (interviews and testing) and breadth (quantitative validation).

One practical distinction matters here. Heuristic evaluations (where experts critique your design against established usability principles) are quick and cheap but don’t involve real users. They’re useful for catching obvious problems before user research begins. Moderated testing (a researcher guides users through tasks) gives you rich observational data but is time-intensive. Unmoderated testing (users complete tasks independently online) scales better but loses the subtlety of observing confusion or hesitation. Healthtech startups often start with moderated testing because the stakes are high and understanding the “why” behind user behaviour matters more than reaching large sample sizes quickly.

Pro tip: Mix qualitative and quantitative methods: start with five to eight user interviews to understand the landscape, then design a more structured usability test with a checklist of specific tasks to validate your assumptions, and finally use a survey or analytics data to measure whether your improvements actually stick with real users.

How UX Research Drives Engagement

Engagement in healthtech isn’t about flashy features or polished interfaces. It’s about whether people actually use your product consistently and whether that use genuinely helps them. Here’s the uncomfortable truth: most digital health tools fail not because of technical limitations but because users abandon them. A patient downloads a diabetes management app, logs in twice, then never opens it again. A clinic adopts a new scheduling system that technically works but staff refuse to use it properly. These failures trace back to a single root cause: the product wasn’t designed with real user needs in mind. This is where UX research becomes indispensable. When you understand your users at a behavioural and emotional level, you can design experiences that users actually want to engage with repeatedly.

The connection between UX research and engagement works through several mechanisms. First, research uncovers what actually motivates your users and what barriers prevent them from achieving their goals. A patient with hypertension might intellectually understand that monitoring blood pressure daily is important, but the emotional friction of using a clunky app repeatedly creates abandonment. UX research reveals this gap. Second, strong UX principles enhance patient engagement by fostering trust. When patients trust that your app prioritises their privacy and makes their life easier rather than complicating it, they return. Trust doesn’t emerge from marketing claims; it emerges from consistent, thoughtful design informed by research. You’ve listened to real users, addressed their concerns, and built something that respects their time and autonomy. Third, research identifies friction points that drain engagement. A clinician’s workflow might include seven unnecessary clicks before reaching the core task. UX research surfaces these inefficiencies so you can eliminate them, reducing cognitive burden and increasing likelihood of sustained use.

From Research Insights to Engagement Strategy

The pathway from research findings to improved engagement isn’t automatic. You need intentionality about translating what you learn into design decisions. User-centred data informs design decisions, minimising risks of ineffective solutions and boosting engagement. When you conduct interviews with ten patients managing chronic conditions, you discover patterns. Perhaps five mention that they forget to take medications because they don’t receive reminders at the right time. Perhaps seven say they get anxious when the app shows concerning readings without offering guidance on next steps. These aren’t bugs; they’re design failures. But now you have concrete direction. You know that adding contextual notifications and educational content during alert moments will likely improve engagement because you’ve listened to real user behaviour and psychology.

Consider how this actually plays out. You interview clinic administrators and discover they spend forty-five minutes daily on manual patient follow-ups that your software could automate. The existing system can technically do this, but the feature is buried in a menu no one knows exists. UX research doesn’t just identify the problem; it confirms whether the feature will actually get used once you surface it properly. You conduct usability testing, redesign the interface to make automation obvious during workflow, and suddenly the feature adoption rate jumps from eight percent to sixty-three percent within six weeks. Engagement increases because friction decreases.

The emotional dimension matters equally. Tailoring user experience to address motivations, fears, and emotional states helps build effective engagement strategies. A patient fears that uploading personal health data means losing privacy. Another patient worries that flagged readings mean immediate hospital admission. A clinician fears that new software will slow their day down. These emotions, rational or not, drive behaviour. UX research surfaces them. Design grounded in research acknowledges these fears through transparent privacy policies, educational messaging, and interface design that clearly shows time savings. Users engage more when they feel understood and when their concerns are addressed proactively.

Pro tip: After conducting UX research, don’t just file the findings away. Create a brief engagement strategy document mapping which research insights directly inform specific design changes, then measure engagement metrics before and after implementing those changes to prove that your research actually moved the needle.

Compliance, Safety and Ethical Standards

When you’re conducting UX research in healthcare, you’re not just collecting opinions about interface design. You’re working with vulnerable populations, accessing sensitive health information, and operating within heavily regulated environments. This reality demands that compliance, safety, and ethical standards aren’t afterthoughts or compliance boxes to tick. They’re foundational to credible, trustworthy research. The stakes are genuinely different here compared to researching a consumer app. If a fashion brand’s usability test reveals poor design, the outcome is user frustration. If a healthtech UX research session breaches participant privacy or causes psychological harm, the consequences extend far beyond a single product decision. You’re building trust not just with individual participants but with the entire healthcare ecosystem.

User research ethics in healthcare require protecting participants through transparency, informed consent, and confidentiality. Here’s what that actually means in practice. Before anyone participates in your research, they must understand exactly what you’re asking of them, how you’ll use their data, and what risks exist. A clinician participating in a usability test needs to know whether you’re recording their screen, whether their voice will be transcribed, and who will see that recording. A patient discussing their medication adherence struggles needs explicit clarity that you won’t share their responses with their employer or insurance provider. This isn’t bureaucratic overhead; informed consent respects autonomy and builds the legitimacy your research requires. Many healthtech teams skip this step or rush through it, treating consent as a form to sign rather than a genuine conversation. That’s a mistake. When participants feel rushed or unclear about what they’re consenting to, the research itself becomes ethically compromised.

Practical Standards for Trustworthy Research

The World Health Organisation emphasises that research involving human subjects adheres to ethical principles including beneficence, justice, and autonomy, with ethics committee oversight ensuring safety and compliance. For a healthtech startup, this translates into concrete practices. First, minimise harm. Healthcare research participants are often in vulnerable circumstances. A patient with a serious diagnosis might feel obligated to participate in your study even if it causes emotional distress. You need safeguards. Have a mental health professional available if you’re researching sensitive topics. Be prepared to stop a session if a participant becomes distressed. Build in breaks. Second, ensure confidentiality rigorously. If you’re interviewing clinicians, strip identifying information from transcripts and reports. Use pseudonyms. Store recordings in encrypted, access-controlled systems. If you’re researching patient experiences, de-identify data so individual health information cannot be traced back to real people. Third, maintain transparency about limitations and risks. Don’t oversell what your research will achieve or imply that participation guarantees product improvements. Be honest. Say something like: “We’re testing this prototype with ten users to identify design problems. Your feedback will inform our next iteration, but we can’t promise specific changes based on your input.”

Many North American healthtech startups operate in contexts where formal institutional review board (IRB) oversight isn’t legally mandated for UX research, but that legal gap doesn’t mean you should ignore ethical rigour. Regulatory gaps exist precisely because traditional clinical trials and medical device testing are what get formalised. UX research sometimes escapes the same scrutiny. Don’t use that as an excuse to cut corners. Instead, treat ethical standards as competitive advantage. When you can demonstrate that your product was designed through rigorous, ethical UX research that protected participant dignity and privacy, you build credibility with healthcare organisations, regulators, and users. They see evidence that you prioritise ethics alongside business outcomes.

Specific compliance considerations vary by context. If you’re researching in regulated healthcare environments (hospitals, clinics), those organisations often have their own research approval processes. A hospital might require ethics committee review before you can interview their staff. Regulatory landscapes also differ between Canada, the United States, and other jurisdictions. HIPAA rules in the US create specific privacy obligations around health information. Canadian provincial health regulations differ. Rather than attempting to navigate this alone, build relationships with compliance professionals early. Some healthtech teams bring in a healthcare compliance consultant during the research design phase. That modest investment prevents costly mistakes.

Pro tip: Before launching your first UX research project, document your ethics protocol explicitly: define how you’ll obtain informed consent, specify data storage and confidentiality procedures, identify potential harms and mitigation strategies, and clarify who has access to research findings; treat this document as seriously as your research methodology itself.

Financial Impact and Cost Efficiency

Here’s the question most product managers at healthtech startups actually want answered: Does UX research pay for itself? The answer is yes, but not always in obvious ways. Many teams treat UX research as a cost centre, a line item that reduces budget available for engineering or marketing. This framing misses the point entirely. Strategic UX research functions as a financial lever. It prevents expensive mistakes, accelerates adoption, reduces training burden, and drives operational efficiency gains that compound over time. The challenge is that these financial benefits don’t always appear as direct revenue increases. They materialise as cost avoidance, reduced churn, improved retention, and faster path to profitability.

Consider the mechanics. A healthtech startup invests five thousand pounds in structured UX research interviewing clinicians before building a new workflow feature. Through those interviews, the team discovers that their planned approach requires nurses to enter data in a specific sequence that contradicts actual clinical practice. Without research, the team would have built the feature as designed, launched it to hospitals, and watched adoption stall because clinicians found it cumbersome. The company would then spend three months rebuilding the feature, causing reputational damage and delayed revenue. That single UX research investment prevented tens of thousands of pounds in rework and opportunity cost. UX improvements in healthtech translate into financial benefits including reduced clinician task times, decreased operational risks, and enhanced product adoption, driving return on investment and cost savings. Workflow-focused UX investments specifically lead to productivity gains that healthcare organisations notice immediately. When a hospital discovers that your software reduces administrative time per patient by three minutes compared to competing solutions, that translates into staff cost savings they can quantify in pounds sterling.

Calculating the Business Case

The financial case for UX research operates through several specific mechanisms. First, reduced development rework. Research identifying design problems before full engineering investment prevents expensive iteration cycles. Building the wrong thing fast costs more than building the right thing slightly slower. Second, faster adoption and higher utilisation. Intuitive, well-designed software requires less training, faces less resistance from end-users, and generates higher usage rates. Healthcare organisations evaluate software not just on feature completeness but on how quickly staff integrate it into daily practice. A system with superior UX gets adopted faster, generating revenue sooner. Third, error reduction and risk mitigation. In healthcare contexts, poor interface design contributes to clinical errors. A confusing medication interface might lead to dosing mistakes. Strategic UX design streamlines workflows and reduces errors, minimising resource waste and operational overhead. Hospitals quantify risk reduction in terms of prevented adverse events, reduced liability exposure, and avoided compliance penalties. Your UX research demonstrating that your interface prevents common errors becomes a selling point worth premium pricing.

Here is a summary of major financial benefits organisations gain from investing in strategic UX research:

Financial Benefit: Reduced Development Costs | How It Occurs: Fewer design iterations | Example in Healthtech: Avoids costly post-launch fixes

Financial Benefit: Faster Product Adoption | How It Occurs: Higher usability, less training | Example in Healthtech: Quicker clinician onboarding

Financial Benefit: Lower Error Rates | How It Occurs: Improved workflows | Example in Healthtech: Decreases clinical mistakes

Financial Benefit: Enhanced Customer Retention | How It Occurs: Better user engagement | Example in Healthtech: Lower patient app churn

For early-stage startups, the financial impact often shows up in customer retention metrics. A patient engagement app with poor UX experiences thirty percent monthly churn. A competitor with thoughtful, research-informed design experiences eight percent churn. Over three years, that difference means the second company retains vastly more customers with substantially lower customer acquisition costs. Churn reduction is pure financial benefit. Fourth, reduced training and support costs. Intuitive software requires less onboarding. Your support team fields fewer questions. Customers need fewer training sessions. These cost reductions compound across your entire customer base.

The challenge for product managers is quantifying these benefits before investing in UX research. You don’t know yet what problems exist or how much rework they’ll cause. That uncertainty makes the business case feel speculative. Address this by starting small. Invest a modest amount in foundational user research on your most critical workflow. Document your findings. Estimate the cost of building without incorporating those findings. Compare that estimated cost to your research investment. Most teams discover the research investment was justified purely through cost avoidance. Then track adoption metrics, support ticket volume, and feature utilisation after implementing research-informed changes. That data becomes your proof point for scaling UX research investment.

Productivity gains in healthcare environments deserve specific emphasis because they’re measurable and valuable. If your UX research with twenty clinicians reveals that your software reduces documentation time by four minutes per patient encounter, and that customer operates a fifty-bed facility, the annual labour savings exceed fifty thousand pounds. You can directly connect UX research investment to quantifiable operational savings your customer achieves.

Pro tip: Before starting your next feature, calculate the cost of three scenarios: building without research, building with UX research, and building then reworking based on user feedback; most teams discover that research-informed development has the lowest total cost, making the financial case clear and compelling to stakeholders.

Avoiding Common UX Pitfalls in Healthtech

Most healthtech products fail not because of weak technology but because of preventable UX mistakes. You’ve probably seen these patterns: a patient portal with so many fields that people abandon registration halfway through. A clinician workflow tool with navigation so inconsistent that experienced users still struggle to find features. An admin dashboard so visually cluttered that critical information gets lost amongst secondary data. These aren’t isolated failures. They’re systemic problems that emerge when teams design without proper user research or when they ignore learnings from that research. The good news is that these pitfalls are entirely preventable if you know what to watch for.

The most common mistake is designing in isolation from real-world context. You build something in your office that looks logical on a spreadsheet but falls apart when a nurse tries to use it during a shift change with three patients calling for attention. This happens because you haven’t observed users in their actual environment dealing with interruptions, time pressure, and competing priorities. Typical UX mistakes in healthcare involve neglecting real-world user context and overwhelming users with cluttered interfaces. The solution is straightforward: conduct field research. Shadow clinicians. Watch patients use your app at home. See where they get stuck, what workarounds they create, and what assumptions you’ve made that don’t match reality. A single four-hour observation session often reveals more than ten hours of interviews conducted in artificial settings.

Second pitfall: overwhelming users with too much information at once. Healthcare products often pack every possible feature and data point onto a single screen because technically they’re all relevant. A clinician’s dashboard shows patient vitals, appointment history, lab results, medication list, notes, alerts, and a dozen other elements competing for attention. The cognitive load becomes crushing. Users don’t ignore unimportant information; they ignore everything because they can’t parse the visual hierarchy. The antidote is ruthless prioritisation. Ask users: if you could see only three pieces of information on this screen right now, what would they be? Build from that foundation. Add secondary information only to screens dedicated to specific tasks. Progressive disclosure works beautifully in healthcare contexts where different users need different information depending on their current task.

Consistency and Accessibility

Third pitfall: inconsistent navigation and interaction patterns. One section of your product uses tabs for navigation. Another uses a sidebar menu. A third uses breadcrumbs. Users have to relearn your product constantly instead of building mental models. Design systems exist precisely to prevent this. They enforce consistency across all screens so users develop reliable expectations about how your product behaves. Fourth pitfall: ignoring accessibility from the start. Many healthtech teams treat accessibility as an afterthought or compliance box. That’s backwards. Accessibility isn’t a feature; it’s a foundation. Inclusive design benefits everyone. High contrast helps users in bright clinical environments. Larger text helps anyone with vision fatigue after a long shift. Keyboard navigation helps users with mobility challenges and also supports clinicians wearing gloves. Voice control accommodates users with injuries or those multitasking during patient care.

Fifth pitfall: complicating data entry unnecessarily. Healthcare workflows involve substantial data entry. EMRs (electronic medical records), patient intake forms, visit notes, all require typing. Every unnecessary field, every confusing label, every poorly designed form increases error rates and clinician frustration. Research shows that poorly designed data entry contributes to both efficiency loss and clinical errors. The solution involves streamlining workflows and designing data entry experiences with obsessive attention to clarity. Use helpful labels. Provide examples. Validate data in real time with helpful error messages. Autofill what you can. Break lengthy forms into logical sections. Test every form with real users before launch.

Most teams that avoid these pitfalls share a common practice: they do UX research before building, validate designs with users during development, and measure actual usage after launch to identify problems they missed. This isn’t bureaucratic overhead. It’s the difference between shipping products people actually use and building features that drain adoption and engagement.

Pro tip: Before finalising any new healthcare workflow or data entry process, conduct at least one moderated usability test with three to five target users working through realistic scenarios; you’ll catch seventy percent of critical UX problems with minimal investment, preventing far costlier fixes after launch.

Elevate Healthtech Success Through Strategic UX Research

Investing in UX research is vital to overcoming the pain points of low user engagement, workflow inefficiencies, and compliance challenges highlighted in the article. When healthcare products fail due to poor design or lack of real-world user insights, the resulting frustration and abandonment impact patient safety and clinical outcomes. Understanding user motivations, emotional barriers, and real environments forms the cornerstone of creating impactful digital health solutions. Format–3 specialises in this very challenge by combining rigorous UX research with thoughtful design and technology to deliver digital products that truly resonate with healthcare professionals and patients alike.

Discover how our end-to-end digital product expertise drives engagement and reliability for healthtech innovations. Through blending strategy, design, engineering, and growth, we help you translate vital user research into effective, compliant, and financially sound solutions. Don’t wait for costly rework or poor adoption to make an impact. Take the next step towards transforming your healthcare product by partnering with Format–3, the agency committed to user-centric, ethical, and cutting-edge digital experiences. Learn more about our approach at Format–3 Digital Product Agency and explore how strategic research-driven design can safeguard your investment and accelerate success.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is UX research in healthcare?

UX research in healthcare focuses on understanding user perceptions and responses when interacting with health-related products, systems, or services. It examines how various stakeholders, such as clinicians and patients, engage with digital health tools in real-world scenarios.

Why is UX research critical in healthtech?

UX research is essential in healthtech because it directly impacts clinical outcomes, patient safety, and workflow efficiency. Poor design can lead to errors and frustration, making it vital to ensure that health products truly support users in achieving their health-related tasks.

How does UX research contribute to financial savings in healthtech?

Investing in UX research can prevent costly mistakes by identifying design flaws early, speeding up product adoption, and reducing training costs. This results in lower error rates and higher user engagement, which collectively enhances the financial performance of healthtech products.

What methods are commonly used in UX research for healthcare?

Common methods include user interviews, usability testing, surveys, and field research. These methods help gather both qualitative and quantitative data, providing insights into user behaviour and preferences necessary for informed design decisions.

Recommended

• CareHive
• Digital Product Design Services | Format-3
• Your Strategic Digital Product Agency | Format–3

By Format-3

Press & Media

More thoughts

Thought leadership creates value, builds knowledge and takes a stand, bridging the gap between traditional and digital platforms