Cancer Institute
The OSF Cancer Institute, a leading regional cancer care center, underwent user research studies on navigation, imagery, and language to ensure the website aligned with patient expectations, emotional needs, and clear communication.
​
Process Overview
Secondary Research – Emotional & Market Analysis - NIH literature, competitor sites, Siteimprove analytics
Test 1 – Navigation - Unmoderated card sort, Excel analysis, navigation structure alignment
Test 2 – Imagery - Remote unmoderated test, rainbow chart, coded responses, emotional resonance
Test 3 – Language Preference - Terminology comparison, comprehension ratings, plain language preference
Presentation – Stakeholder Alignment - Findings deck, internal teams, senior Cancer Institute leaders
Background
Objective
This project focused on redesigning the OSF Cancer Institute website to reflect the innovation, quality, and compassionate care offered by the new destination center in Peoria. The OSF HealthCare Cancer Institute is a $237 million, five-story facility designed with patients and their families at the center—bringing together all aspects of cancer care under one roof. The Institute offers advanced technology and treatments, including the only proton beam therapy available between Chicago and St. Louis. The Institute launched and began accepting new patients in April 2024.
As a major addition to the OSF Ministry and a regional hub for cancer care, the website needed to match the Institute’s elevated role by clearly communicating its purpose, services, and exceptional capabilities.
Our goal was to create a digital experience that mirrors the excellence of care delivered by OSF Mission Partners. Stakeholder input, web analytics, and industry best practices uncovered key challenges: confusing navigation, a homepage that lacked emotional impact, and messaging that didn’t adequately convey the Institute’s advanced offerings or the compassionate mission of OSF. Through a user-centered design (UCD) approach, we focused on addressing the real needs of individuals visiting the site—often during some of the most overwhelming moments of their lives.
Role
I was the research lead on this project as well as a UX Designer.
Research Process
When approaching this redesign, I started by grounding myself in the emotional reality of individuals facing cancer. According to NIH research, emotions like sadness, worry, and guilt dominate immediately after diagnosis—long before feelings of hope emerge. That insight became a lens for every research decision: the site couldn’t just inform, it had to reassure.
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
Secondary Research
I began by combining several data sources to understand where the current site was failing. Siteimprove analytics showed high bounce rates and weak CTA engagement on key pages, while competitor reviews highlighted stronger emotional resonance on other cancer sites. Internally, stakeholders described navigation as confusing and the homepage as lacking impact. My thought process here was to look for convergence points: if analytics, stakeholder feedback, and best practices all pointed to the same pain points, those areas became top priorities for testing.
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
Test 1 – Navigation (Card Sorting)
Our main navigation was limited by space, so my first step was to clarify how users naturally expected content to be grouped. My research questions focused on problem areas we already suspected: Did people see clinical trials as research? Where would they put screenings? What did they think “programs” meant? And since we knew we’d need at least one new category, what should it be called?
​
I ran an unmoderated card sort on UserTesting.com, giving participants real terms from the site and asking them to sort and label them. While the data was mixed-method—primarily qualitative with some quantitative overlap—the key was looking for consistent mental models. I analyzed patterns in Excel and also paid close attention to participants’ proposed solutions.
​
The findings gave us clear direction:
-
“Clinical trials” belonged under “Research”
-
“Programs” were understood as treatments and fit better under “Conditions and Treatments”
-
Screenings and early detection content warranted a new category, “Prevention”
-
All other labels made sense and didn’t require major changes
​
My thought process here was to let user expectations lead, rather than forcing them to adapt to internal organizational terms. The result was a navigation structure validated by users—simple, intuitive, and aligned with how people think about cancer care.
Test 2 – Imagery
For the imagery study, my primary goal was to ensure that visuals conveyed warmth, trust, and professionalism while avoiding a sterile or cold impression. I considered how users emotionally connected with different types of imagery — illustrations, icons, and photos — and evaluated each in context with the site’s messaging. Illustrations emerged as the strongest option, feeling personal, uplifting, and innovative, while icons provided consistency but lacked emotional resonance, and photos, although professional, appeared distant and stock-like.
​
I also recognized that imagery effectiveness depends heavily on context; visuals paired with supportive text amplify impact and guide user perception. This insight informed our design approach: illustrations were prioritized across the homepage and key pages to create warmth and approachability, icons were used sparingly for functional cues, and generic stock photos were minimized to maintain a human-centered, welcoming experience.
Photos
Illustrations
Icons
Test 3 - Wording Study
For the language study, the objective was to evaluate how titles and subtitles on the homepage resonated with users and conveyed intended messages. I focused on understanding participants’ interpretations of commonly used healthcare terminology and aspirational descriptors. Words like “world-class” were consistently understood as top-tier quality, while terms such as “holistic care” were ambiguous, interpreted variably as mind-body care or nontraditional practices. Phrases like “cutting-edge” and “leading-edge” were perceived as risky, whereas “innovative” suggested achievement through careful risk-taking. Terms like “clinics” and “multi-disciplinary” caused confusion, signaling a need for plain, universally understood language.
​
These insights guided a strategy centered on clarity and trust. Titles and subtitles were chosen to align with user expectations, using words that conveyed excellence without ambiguity or perceived risk. Where technical or aspirational terms were unavoidable, they were contextualized to ensure comprehension. This research reinforced a principle applied across the redesign: language on the site should be clear, supportive, and immediately understandable, particularly for users navigating emotionally charged moments in their cancer journey.
Synthesis
With three separate studies, my thought process was about integration—how do these insights combine into a bigger picture? I used affinity mapping in Miro to cluster themes, rainbow charts to visualize participant responses, and funnel mapping to tie findings directly to user needs at awareness, evaluation, and conversion stages. This helped me not only answer “what do we know?” but also “what do we do with it?”
Presentation
The final step was presenting insights. This was more than reporting data—it was about building credibility with a difficult stakeholder group that included doctors, executives, and the President of the Cancer Service Line. I knew success depended on translating user research into language that spoke to both clinicians and business leaders. My strategy was to show data in a way that directly answered their concerns: navigation that improves usability, language that builds trust, and a homepage that conveys hope. The response was overwhelmingly positive. The presentation not only smoothed over a strained relationship but also positioned our UX team as trusted partners.
