SOCORRO

A mobile app that makes finding the right therapist faster so that you can get the care you need right away.

Role

End-to-end UX/UI Designer

Product

Mobile App

Duration

November to March 2023

Tools

Figma & Miro

THE PROBLEM

Users have everything at their disposal, but they have no idea where to start when it comes to finding the right therapist.

Many therapy seekers are delving into numerous resources such as their insurance website, Google, and Psychology Today to find one thing: a good therapist. On top of the long waitlist to see a therapist, the lengthy search for quality care is preventing people from getting the help they need. This situation causes both frustration for the user and funnel drop offs for businesses.

GOAL

To create a centralized digital experience for finding the right therapist.

SOLUTION

Socorro helps users identify the right therapist more easily by allowing them to match on the criteria that are important to them.

Factors such as insurance coverage, gender, ethnicity, years in practice, therapeutic modality, condition, and more are taken into consideration in the various filters and onboarding process.

UNDERSTANDING THE USER

I completed a competitor analysis and conducted several user interviews in order to understand the current market and my audience.

I conducted competitive analysis and user interviews. Going into the research I assumed that there were already existing websites with the filtering capabilities that users want and that Google would be the number one search source. Ultimately I found that users were looking for even more filters than the currently existing ones. The websites out there did not often allow users to filter for things such as the desired ethnicity of the therapist or even verify pricing. While Google was a commonly used resource it was being used in conjunction with websites like Psychology Today and there was not a very efficient process.

COMPETITOR
ANALYSIS

While the competitors did have extensive networks, many of them lacked the ability to match users on their preferred criteria accurately.

I used competitive analysis to evaluate four companies that are currently on the market and see what their approach to the problem was so that I could develop my own. The four companies were Betterhelp, Psychology Today, Alma, and Spring Health. I evaluated them based on the strengths, weaknesses, and features offered.

I wanted to know how the competition had structured their apps and websites. I also tried to find out how to structure mine to set it apart. I found out what was different about each competitor and what their key features were. I was able to achieve the goal of the competitive analysis by understanding what the market for therapist locating apps and websites had to offer.

Competitive analysis showed that the current market has only one competitor using an intake quiz which is quite lengthy. All of the competitors had an extensive network of providers; however, several did not list prices according to insurance coverage. Many did not adequately match user preferences (ex: no way to match therapists based on desired ethnic background). I think if I am to do another competitive analysis I will spend more time evaluating key features. A lot of the apps had the same features, so it was hard to distinguish between them.

USER INTERVIEWS

Users found the research process overwhelming even with all the tools available.

I conducted interviews with 5 people who fit into the target audience. I identified research goals, recruited participants, conducted sessions, analyzed the research, and identified insights. The purpose of this research was to learn how people search for therapists, and what they value in a therapist, so that I could better understand how to help them find one. The research aimed to understand the following:

Determine the top criteria people search for.
Determine where/how people are looking for therapists.
What is the most challenging part of finding care?
What are the main factors to consider when choosing a therapist?
What do people prioritize first?
Do they prefer to see a therapist in person or virtually?

The interviews allowed me to delve deeper with participants and understand more of the reasons behind their behaviors. In this way I could ask follow up questions if I got an interesting response.

This research was important because it helped confirm the hypothesis that while users had a number of sources to refer to for their search, often it was not clear how to direct their search or where to begin. The process gave me several observations to build off of.

In hindsight, I would have asked some subject matter experts (SMEs) such as therapists for their advice as well so that I could learn more about some of their challenges in representing themselves and being located. I could have worked some of the insights from SMEs into the development of my application.

AFFINITY MAP

Users want to get it right the first time, but the surplus of resources and options creates analysis paralysis.

I created an affinity map with the responses to the user interview questions. I decided on this research method because it provided a great way to make sense of the large volume of information that I received from the interviews. It allowed me to cluster information in an organized way. Using this method, I was able to synthesize insights. I achieved my goal of breaking down the information into a more comprehensible format.

I learned that users are relying on websites like Google, Psychology Today, referrals, and word of mouth to find therapists and reviews. There is a lack of a centralized location for finding a therapist that meets all criteria. Finding a therapist that matches and understands one’s lived experience is important. Pain points included time commitment, analysis paralysis with number of resources, and having to switch therapists multiple times.

PERSONAS

The two main user types were users who want to research their therapist thoroughly before making a choice and users that are experienced and know their criteria ahead of time.

I created personas based on the different users I interviewed. I decided on this method because I believed it would help me understand the users I was building an app for, learn how each user approaches the problem differently, and distinguish between the motivations of each user type.

As a result, I was able to come up with two main personas that could the development of my app. I learned that there are really experienced therapy seekers, as well as those who may not be experienced but still do a lot of research when finding a therapist. If I could do it again I would probably include a third persona based on the person who knows nothing about therapy and may not be great at researching either.

TASK & USER FLOWS

The task and user flows helped me to break down the sign up, booking, and therapist search processes into steps.

I created task flows and user flows for my app. I used this method because it would allow me to outline the steps that a user takes with my product to meet their goals. It helped me evaluate the efficiency of the process users take to achieve their goals and nail down how to execute some of the ideas I had developed.

As a result, I could formulate one way the user could solve a problem and analyze the decisions the user will have to make in the process. However, I don’t think I achieved the intended purpose with this deliverable because I didn’t end up wireframing some of the tasks that I outlined.

I learned how much thought goes into developing each function of an app. I think next time I would be more certain about the tasks I want to be a part of my app before doing tasks flows and user flows. By making this more concrete I can make sure that every flow I develop is useful.

WIREFRAMING

Wireframes were a quick, low-stakes way to architect a solution to the problems my users were experiencing.

I created low-fidelity and mid-fidelity wireframes for my app. I did this in order to architect a solution, detail the location of elements that had started as mere concepts, and make changes more easily than if I had started with a high-fidelity prototype.

The wireframes taught me which concepts should be developed further. I learned how difficult it can be to come up with multiple sketches for one concept. A lot of times I would get so focused on one idea that it was hard to come up with a different one, but the diversity of ideas is truly what helps to create the best ones. I think if I had the opportunity to redo this project I would have made sure to create at least 3 sketches per feature so that I would have a lot to choose from.

HIGH-FIDELITY PROTOTYPE

The high-fidelity prototype was a way of visualizing the final product and what would be shown to users and stakeholders.

The high-fidelity prototype was based on all my research and previous deliverables. I created a prototype in order to demonstrate what the final product would look like and also be able to move on to the testing phase.

I was able to add in all the interactions and see how the product would function. By seeing all the visual and typographic details of the product I was able to visualize what would actually be shown to a customer or stakeholder. Something I would do differently would be studying more visual design trends in advance so I could know which ones were appropriate for my design.

USABILITY TESTING

The usability testing presented the opportunity to hear from users about whether the app was truly functional and would be helpful in their daily lives. I used their feedback to make important revisions.

Finally, I conducted usability testing on my prototype in order to establish whether the product was useful, whether users could complete the tasks at hand, and evaluate how users felt about the product. I wanted to create a report of all of the observations from the testing so that I could make necessary changes.

I came up with a system usability scale for evaluating the product after I had the participants run through the tasks. This helped me to identify the general opinions of users. Other measures like time on tasks and error rates helped me evaluate what was working and what was not.

The main comments were those listed below. I took all the feedback and made my priority revisions.

Control

Users wanted more control and explanation of their choices

Visual Design

Design needed to be updated to be more visible and accessible.

Prototyping

Prototyping errors in the intake and filtered search flows prevented progress