Digital accessibility refers to the ability of any person, whatever their disabilities or limitations (physical, sensory, cognitive or educational), to use a technology or application independently and effectively.
In the field of community health, this means designing tools that can be used by health workers who may have low levels of literacy, little familiarity with technology, or limited access to the Internet. Accessibility is therefore not a luxury, but an essential condition for guaranteeing genuine access to healthcare.
Accessibility for people with low literacy levels or living with a disability.
CHT is also designed to be used by community health workers whose literacy levels may be limited.
To achieve this:
Icons are simple, self-explanatory and recognizable, with clearly differentiated colors.
The language used is clear, direct and contextual, often based on familiar keywords.
Instructions are visual and step-by-step to avoid cognitive overload.
In the future, audio or symbolic modes may be integrated depending on the local context.
Contrast, legibility and visual simplicity
CHT interfaces have strong visual contrasts, with clearly differentiated colors to facilitate reading in the event of visual impairment or in bright sunlight.
Texts are simple and written at a legible size, in understandable language, with a clear structure and with colors to avoid confusion (e.g. red/green for color-blind people).
Buttons are large, well-spaced and quickly recognizable, and navigation is carried out using large, well-spaced buttons for easy handling.
Off-line and SMS operation
CHT works even without the Internet, thanks to :
An application capable of storing data locally and synchronizing as soon as the network is available.
In areas with no smartphone or Internet network, CHT’s intelligent SMS system enables alerts, reminders to be sent via simple text messages.
User-centered community approach
Medic designs CHT in collaboration with field agents, taking into account their capabilities, constraints and local languages. This co-design guarantees a truly usable and useful application.
Impact
CHT’s accessibility enables staff with low literacy levels, who are not technophiles, or who have visual impairments, to become autonomous in patient care. It contributes to digital inclusion, continuity of care and the reduction of inequalities in access to healthcare.
Improvements to CHT accessibility
CHT accessibility can always be improved:
The possibility of integrating audible notifications that can be accompanied by visual signals for urgent tasks.
Integration of audio guides or development of explanatory videos in local languages for agents with reading difficulties.
Conclusion
To be effective, a digital health platform must be accessible to as many people as possible, including those who read little, or who have neither a smartphone nor a constant Internet connection.
To reach the most vulnerable populations, digital health must be designed with and for people with disabilities or low literacy levels.
CHT shows that with a user-centered approach, it is possible to offer a reliable, humane and universally accessible tool.
CHT illustrates how accessible design can transform a constraint into a lever for equity and public health.
Thank you for this powerful post on digital accessibility and CHT’s efforts to ensure usability for CHWs with diverse needs. As a service designer working closely with CHWs, I deeply resonate with the idea that accessibility is not a luxury—it’s a foundation for equitable care.
Building on your reflections, I’d love to invite others in the community to share their experiences, challenges, and solutions related to designing for CHWs with low literacy, limited digital exposure, or disabilities.
Some questions I’ve been reflecting on in my own work:
How are you gathering accessibility insights from CHWs during research or prototyping?
Have you found alternative methods of co-design that work well for low-literacy participants (e.g. storytelling, drawing, play-based methods)?
What examples of non-text-based UI components (icons, audio, gestures) have worked well in your context?
How do you test accessibility affordances in the field when time and resources are limited?
Have you had to trade off between accessibility and other programmatic requirements? How did you navigate it?
At Medic, we talk a lot about “designing with, not for.” I’d love to hear how that’s showing up in your accessibility work—especially with harder-to-reach or multiply-marginalized groups.
