Turning research patterns into behavioral archetypes

CHALLENGE

The Quality Payment Program serves a wide range of healthcare professionals and organizations. Existing personas helped describe differences between organizations, but they did not fully explain how individual participants approached the program.

​

People working in similar settings could behave very differently depending on their motivation, confidence, available capacity, experience, and reliance on outside support. Without a shared way to describe these differences, it was easy to treat participants as more alike than they really were.

​

We needed a more nuanced framework for understanding the people behind participation.

​

PROJECT TIMELINE

March - April 2025

​

MY ROLE

I led the research and development of the archetype framework. I reviewed and synthesized findings across multiple studies, identified recurring behavioral patterns, defined the archetypes, and facilitated conversations with stakeholders to refine and apply the work.

​

RESEARCH METHODS

Thematic analysis, behavioral pattern mapping, stakeholder collaboration, and framework development

​

 

BACKGROUND

The program already had organization-level personas that described characteristics such as practice size, reporting structure, and available resources.

​

Those categories were useful, but they could not always account for the individuals working within those organizations. Two people in similar roles might approach participation very differently: one could be highly strategic and confident, while another might feel overwhelmed and focus only on completing the immediate requirement.

 

Across several research efforts, I began to notice recurring differences in how participants thought, made decisions, sought support, and responded to the demands of the program.

​

The archetypes project brought those patterns together into a shared framework.

​

 

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

• What recurring behaviors and attitudes appeared across our research?

• What influenced how people approached participation?

• Which differences were meaningful enough to shape support needs?

• How could we represent those patterns without relying on demographics or rigid personas?

• How might the framework help teams discuss participant needs more clearly?

 

 

APPROACH

Reviewing the existing research

​

I began by reviewing findings from multiple research efforts conducted across the program.

 

Rather than organizing the data around job titles, practice types, or demographic characteristics, I looked for recurring differences in:

• Motivation to participate

• Confidence and experience

• Available time and capacity

• Reliance on colleagues or outside support

• Willingness to seek help

• Approach to planning and decision-making

• Level of engagement with the program

 

This allowed me to compare patterns that appeared across different studies and stages of the participant experience.

​

Identifying behavioral patterns

I grouped related behaviors, needs, and attitudes and looked for combinations that appeared consistently enough to represent distinct approaches to participation.

 

The goal was not to place every person into a fixed category. Instead, the archetypes were designed as recognizable patterns that could help the team discuss why people in similar circumstances might need different kinds of support.

​

The analysis initially produced nine archetypes spanning different levels of engagement, confidence, and capacity.

 

Building the framework

For each archetype, I documented characteristics such as:

• What motivated or discouraged participation

• How the person approached decisions and deadlines

• Where they tended to struggle

• What kinds of support they relied on

• What might help them feel more confident or capable

 

I also organized the archetypes into broader groupings to make the framework easier to understand and use.

 

Refining the work with stakeholders

I shared the framework with colleagues and stakeholders to test whether the patterns felt recognizable, distinct, and useful.

 

These conversations helped refine the language, clarify overlap between archetypes, and identify where the framework could support future discussions about content, tools, and participant support.

 

REPRESENTATIVE ARCHETYPES

For this case study, I would show only three simplified examples rather than the full set.

 

The time-sensitive participant

Wants to meet program requirements but has limited time and capacity. Often focuses on the most immediate task and may depend heavily on reminders, colleagues, or outside support.

 

The experienced strategist

Understands the program well and approaches participation deliberately. Looks beyond basic compliance and uses available information to make informed, longer-term decisions.

 

The reluctant participant

Feels disconnected from the value of the program or questions whether participation is worth the effort. May engage only when required and is less likely to seek out additional guidance.

 

 

Archetypes and visuals have been simplified and recreated for this case study. No participant data or original client materials are included.

 

 

OUTCOME

The archetypes gave the team a more human and behavior-based way to discuss program participants.

Instead of assuming that people in similar roles or organizations would behave alike, stakeholders could consider how differences in confidence, motivation, capacity, and support shaped the experience.

 

The framework helped:

• Add nuance to existing organization-level personas

• Create shared language for recurring participant behaviors

• Support more focused conversations about participant needs

• Encourage teams to consider different approaches to guidance, tools, and support

 

The work also created a foundation that could be further validated and applied across future research and service-design efforts.

 

 

REFLECTION

The most important lesson from this project was that archetypes are useful only when they remain flexible.

 

People may move between patterns depending on the task, time of year, available support, or changes in their circumstances. I therefore treated the framework as a tool for thinking and discussion rather than a fixed classification system.

 

The project also reinforced the value of synthesizing across studies. Individual research projects answered specific questions, but reviewing the work collectively revealed patterns that were harder to see within any one study.