BanooHealth, an early-stage women's health initiative, wanted to support Afghan immigrant and refugee women with culturally safe access to sexual, reproductive, and mental health information. The team was eager to build an MVP and had good intentions backed by secondary research. But they were missing something critical: primary understanding of the people they wanted to serve.
I was brought in to ground the initiative in research before a single design decision was made. My role wasn't to validate an idea already in motion—it was to determine whether and how the product should exist at all.
At this stage, research functioned as risk mitigation. It protected participants, future users, and the organization itself from premature or misaligned decisions.
I designed a lean but ethically rigorous research plan that prioritized depth, cultural safety, and feasibility over speed. Rather than rushing to validate assumptions, the approach centered on lived experience and trust dynamics that would shape all downstream decisions.
Reviewed existing studies on immigrant and refugee women's access to healthcare, with focus on stigma, trust, and systemic barriers.
Designed conversations with Afghan women to understand health-seeking behavior, trust boundaries, and lived experience.
Engaged with community organizations to identify culturally appropriate recruitment pathways.
Spoke with internal team members to surface assumptions, constraints, and definitions of success.
Because this work involved health topics and potentially vulnerable populations, primary interviews were paused until IRB-aligned processes and safety protocols could be finalized.
This pause was an intentional design decision, not a procedural delay. Protecting participants and future users took precedence over momentum. It set a precedent for how research would be conducted moving forward and demonstrated to stakeholders that ethical rigor was non-negotiable.
Through this research, critical patterns emerged that would reshape the entire product strategy.
Women wouldn't engage with any tool that felt traceable, judgmental, or visible to family or community.
Privacy became a core design principle rather than a technical consideration. This meant anonymous access, no account requirements, and transparent data handling from the start.
Health questions varied significantly depending on whether someone was newly arrived or more established in their community.
A single user profile would have erased critical differences. User segmentation wasn't optional—it was essential to meeting actual needs.
Highly medicalized or overly open-ended interfaces created hesitation rather than clarity.
Tone, structure, and framing mattered as much as accuracy. The interface would need to guide gently without overwhelming or using language that felt alienating.
While privacy expectations varied, users required clear explanations of how information would be handled.
Trust was built through clarity, not reassurance. Users needed to know exactly what happened to their data before they'd engage.
Uncertainty around permissible health information posed real risk to both users and the organization.
Building without legal clarity could lead to regulatory violations or user harm. This research identified specific areas requiring legal review before any MVP could proceed.
This research fundamentally shifted the team's approach from assumption-driven to evidence-based.
Stakeholder Journey
Initial resistance to pausing was strong—secondary research was viewed as sufficient. Over time, by identifying specific gaps, demonstrating the limits of existing data, and presenting a viable recruitment strategy, stakeholder perspectives shifted toward alignment. The conversation changed from "when can we build" to "what do we need to know first."
Although I'm no longer part of the organization, the foundational research and roadmap I created continues to guide the team's approach to product development.
This project reinforced a central truth about UX research in sensitive domains: advocacy is part of the work.
My role required slowing the organization down when speed posed risk. That meant challenging assumptions, naming gaps early, and holding firm when momentum pushed toward building without sufficient understanding. In health-related products, slowing down is often the fastest way forward.
What I learned: