Qualitative research in healthcare cannot rely on a single way of defining or understanding an audience. The people who matter, the evidence required and the questions worth asking can all change as a product moves from early innovation to development and use. For researchers, the challenge is to adapt without losing sight of the people behind the decisions.
For Mariana Helguera Martinez, Lead Design & UX Strategist at Novo Nordisk, that challenge draws on a career spanning research, design and innovation across different industries. Although qualitative researchers bring transferable skills to their work, the methods they use and the teams they collaborate with do not always transfer unchanged from one organisation or product context to another.
Lead Design & UX Strategist
Novo Nordisk
Ahead of QUAL360 Europe 2027, Mariana reflects on the importance of context in research, what longitudinal work can reveal about the gap between what people say and do, how to translate qualitative evidence into business decisions, and why human judgement remains essential as AI becomes more common in research workflows.
Why qualitative research in healthcare must adapt to context
Researchers often move between sectors with a familiar toolkit: interviewing, observing behaviour, analysing patterns and translating findings into recommendations. Yet knowing how to conduct qualitative research is not the same as knowing which research approach a particular decision needs.
Mariana observes that researchers have transferable capabilities and often speak a shared methodological language. What changes is how the research fits the product, the organisation and the people responsible for acting on its findings.
As she puts it, “the way we do qual research and how we collaborate with other internal teams can change a lot depending on what part of the product or experience we are influencing”.
That distinction becomes especially important in healthcare innovation, where decisions about the intended population, product design, usability and commercial positioning may require different types of understanding. One audience definition cannot necessarily answer every question at every stage.
At QUAL360 Europe, Mariana will explore lessons from working across industries with different levels of product regulation and different relationships between research and innovation. The thread connecting those experiences is the need to design research around the decision being made, rather than assume that a familiar method or segmentation model will always be sufficient.
Understanding the gap between what people say and do
The value of contextual research is particularly clear when an initial explanation does not match what happens in everyday life. Survey responses, interviews and market trends can reveal important patterns, but they do not always explain why a behaviour occurs or which factors matter most.
Mariana recalls a longitudinal project in which she and her colleagues engaged with people in two countries over several weeks. Spending time with participants across a longer period helped the team see how reported attitudes and actual behaviours related to the circumstances of their lives.
Mariana describes what this longer engagement made possible:
“This allowed us to really see how the ‘say-do’ plays out in the context of their lives.”
Rather than simply reinforcing existing market research, the study helped uncover the reasons behind observed trends. Mariana explains that the team was able to challenge an established assumption about the cause, effect and relative importance of a product attribute.
It is an example of what contextual qualitative research can contribute: not just another description of consumer behaviour, but a more credible explanation that may change how a team frames a problem. The lesson extends beyond any single project: understanding the circumstances behind people’s behaviour can challenge assumptions and lead teams towards better-informed decisions.
From qualitative evidence to decisions stakeholders can act on
In qualitative research in healthcare, uncovering a meaningful pattern is only part of the challenge. Researchers must also help stakeholders understand what the evidence means for the business and which decisions it can inform. Mariana is clear that qualitative findings should not have to prove their value against criteria designed for quantitative studies.
“I stay away from defending qualitative research using quantitative criteria such as statistical significance or sample size.”
Qualitative and quantitative research serve different purposes. Rather than treating them as competing forms of proof, Mariana helps stakeholders see how each can contribute to a fuller understanding, independently or in combination.
When judging whether qualitative findings are strong enough to inform action, she considers the consistency and depth of patterns, their power to explain existing evidence or trends, and their relevance to the particular decision. Just as importantly, she makes the limitations of the findings and her level of confidence explicit.
That decision-first approach begins before analysis. Mariana returns to the questions raised during scoping, identifies which assumptions have been supported or challenged and draws out what the organisation should explore, change or prioritise next. The result should not be a report that merely describes what participants said, but a clear account of what the business can responsibly do with that understanding.
A related QUAL360 Europe interview with BSH on qualitative insights and business decisions explores how researchers connect human understanding with strategic priorities across markets.
Why qualitative research should not be judged by quantitative rules
The pressure for research to become faster and more scalable has made an old debate more urgent. When qualitative work is evaluated primarily by sample size or statistical significance, researchers can find themselves defending the wrong criteria instead of explaining the questions their evidence is designed to answer.
Mariana points to the continued tendency to judge qualitative work by quantitative standards, now intensified by AI and promises of “qual at quant speed and scale”. She also questions the assumption that anyone can conduct qualitative research simply because research tools are becoming more accessible.
Wider access to tools can be useful, but conducting an interview or generating a summary is not the whole of the discipline. Research quality also depends on sound scoping, careful design, interpretation, an understanding of bias and the ability to recognise the limits of what has been learned.
For organisations, the practical question is not whether qualitative research can imitate quantitative research. It is what kind of evidence will help people make a better decision, and whether the method is appropriate for the uncertainty involved.
The capabilities researchers need in an AI-driven world
AI now touches many parts of the research process, from preparing studies and structuring information to analysis and reporting. Mariana follows developments in synthetic users, AI moderation and related applications, while testing where the technology can help in her own work.
Her interest comes with a concern about both bias and what she calls “cognitive surrender”: the risk of relying too readily on technology without maintaining the researcher’s own critical judgement.
She also sees two capabilities becoming particularly important. The first is business acumen and stakeholder management: understanding which product and commercial decisions need to be made, who makes them, when they happen and what matters to those stakeholders. The second is being able to explain the advantages and limits of AI to colleagues who increasingly expect faster and more economical insights.
That combination matters because new tools can increase the volume and speed of outputs without automatically improving their relevance. Researchers still need to assess how evidence was produced, whether it answers the original question and where additional human understanding is required.
These concerns also connect with Merlien’s QUAL360 Europe 2026 review of AI, human judgement and the future of qualitative research, where participants reflected on the need to keep interpretation and accountability at the centre of emerging research practices.
What should remain human by 2030?
Looking towards 2030, Mariana expects major changes to how qualitative research is conducted, synthesised and reported, with AI and new tools playing a larger role and more studies taking place online.
What she hopes will endure is the recognition that research with real people is essential for uncovering the underlying “whys”. In particular, she values in-person research for the opportunities it creates to understand lives and circumstances beyond the boundaries of a formal interview.
That is not a rejection of technology or remote methods. It is a reminder that efficiency and understanding are different objectives. Some questions may be answered through faster, digitally enabled approaches; others require time, attention and contact with the contexts in which people actually live.
For Mariana, the future of qualitative research will depend as much on protecting that capacity for deeper understanding as on adopting new tools.
Beyond the session: curiosity, culture and conversation
Outside her conference presentation, Mariana would welcome conversations about cultural commonalities and differences, as well as emerging approaches, theories and methods in research and innovation.
Beyond professional interests, she is always happy to talk about good food and interesting books, both fiction and non-fiction.
Reading & listening: Mariana’s recommendations
We also asked Mariana to share a few sources of inspiration for her peers:
- Podcast: Ologies. Although she does not listen to podcasts regularly, Mariana enjoys its exploration of different subjects, reflecting her curiosity across disciplines.
- Book: Designing Experiences, by Rossman and Duerden.
- Song for working, thinking or inspiration: Starlight, by Muse.
Designing for many at QUAL360 Europe 2027
Mariana’s reflections point to a central question for healthcare innovation: who are we designing for, and which people need to be understood for the decision at hand? A product may need to serve a broad intended population, while different decisions along its lifecycle require more specific evidence about particular groups and contexts.
On Thursday, 28 January 2027, 12:20–12:50, Mariana will present “Designing for Many: Rethinking How We Understand Audiences in Healthcare Innovation” at QUAL360 Europe 2027 in Berlin.
Drawing on experience across healthcare, medical devices, design consulting and consumer products, her session will examine how inclusive research and more focused audience segmentation can serve different purposes, and why the relevant audience changes with the product decision, stage of development and stakeholders involved.
The wider conference will bring together qualitative research and insights professionals to discuss credible evidence, human understanding and the strategic impact of research in a changing industry.
Explore QUAL360 Europe 2027 and register | 27–28 January 2027 | Leonardo Royal Berlin Alexanderplatz, Berlin.
