Helping people find the right mental health support

I redesigned Intellect’s care experience to help employees get the right support, improve outcomes, and make employer-funded care more sustainable to deliver

Intellect’s mission is to make mental healthcare accessible for everyone. Through their employers, members can access services such as coaching and therapy. But having support available does not necessarily make it clear which service to choose.

For Intellect, the business need was to retain employer contracts and improve the profitability of delivering care. Employers needed evidence that the benefit was helping employees when deciding whether to renew. Meanwhile, contract revenue was largely fixed, while each provider session added a delivery cost. More bookings could increase costs without demonstrating better outcomes.

I led the redesign of Care into Guided Care: helping members reach clinically appropriate support, understand their options and follow their progress. The business case was to strengthen the evidence for employer renewals while controlling delivery costs through better triage.

Business success to evaluate: Employer renewal rate and contract profitability, supported by evidence of member improvement and delivery cost per active member.

✨ Project Overview

My role	Lead UX Designer
Team	1 Designer, Clinical Team, Commercial Team
Timeline	Feb- June 2026

🎯The app needed a refresh

Initial brief

The existing app used Quicksand and a visual style we wanted to update. There was work to do on typography, layout and components. But a newer-looking interface would not, on its own, explain why the redesign mattered to members or the business.

I looked at the starting point the product gave someone seeking help. Care was divided into Coaching, Clinical and Holistic tabs. Members chose a service, found a provider and booked. They were expected to understand the categories before deciding where to go.

Internal analysis had identified 660+ potentially self-serviceable support tickets over six months, including questions about sessions, booking and Care navigation. The total covered several problems, but it pointed to difficulties that a visual refresh alone would not address.

Intellect’s mission gave me a reason to look beyond appearance. Access also depended on people understanding what support was available and how to use it. I needed to connect that problem to what the company was trying to achieve that year.

The redesign needed a business case

Business context

Intellect called its annual business objectives “rocks”. Profitability and Australia were two priorities relevant to this work. I needed to understand what each meant for the Care redesign.

For profitability, the employer-funded model mattered. Employers paid for employees’ access to care. Revenue was largely fixed at the contract level, while each provider session added a delivery cost. Those costs contributed to COGS—cost of goods sold.

It would have been easy to judge the redesign by whether more members booked sessions. That would show increased use, but it would not tell us whether the care was helping. It could also increase delivery costs.

What does “sustainable” actually mean?

At first glance, more utilisation sounds obviously good. More people using a mental-health benefit should mean more value. But Intellect's business model makes that more complicated. Employer revenue is largely fixed at the contract level, while provider sessions create variable delivery cost.

One contract we examined made the tension tangible.

1,120 employees
SGD 22,667 annual contract value
≈ SGD 20.24 revenue per employee
Entitlement: 3 coaching + 3 clinical sessions
Coaching delivery cost: ≈ SGD 49 / session
Clinical delivery cost: ≈ SGD 114 / session
Full-entitlement direct delivery cost: ≈ SGD 489 per employee

In this example, annual revenue per employee represented only around 4% of the direct cost of delivering the full entitlement.

And a clinical session cost roughly 2.3× a coaching session.

I wanted the redesign to help people receive useful care while addressing the cost of providing it. To explore how that could work—and connect it to the other company priority—I spoke with our Australian team.

🎯From a visual refresh to Guided Care

Reframing the brief

Australia was already part of the company’s objectives for the year. My conversations with the team brought stepped care into the project: starting people with support appropriate to their needs, then assessing their progress and whether that support needed to change.

I saw how this could connect the member problem with the business problem. Members needed help choosing suitable support. Intellect needed to understand whether that care was working and manage its delivery costs. Triage and follow-up could address those questions together.

I reframed the redesign around helping people reach appropriate care and following through to an outcome. That became Guided Care.

Clinical owned the interpretation of assessment and intake information. I worked with them to turn those rules into an experience members could understand and use.

I had a reason to change the experience. To build support for it, I needed colleagues to see and try what I was proposing.

Prototypes helped win approval

Testing the idea

I quickly built initial Guided Care prototypes with Claude. They let me show how someone could move from describing their needs to understanding a recommendation and starting care.

I tested those prototypes with our Australian team and colleagues from Commercial, Customer Support and Finance. The response was broadly positive, with support for taking the experience forward. These were internal reviews of the proposed experience; they helped establish whether the idea was worth pursuing.

The prototypes also showed why the work required more than small changes to the existing Care tab. Guidance, ongoing actions and provider relationships needed a different layout and navigation structure.

I used the proposed experience, the internal feedback and its connection to the company’s objectives to make the case for the redesign.

Leadership greenlit the new Care tab and the wider app redesign.

The reframing now had a concrete result. I could move from building support for the idea to planning how we would deliver it.

A couple of months to ship

Delivery constriants

We were a Series B company with only a couple of months to ship the new Care tab and redesign. Engineering needed a concrete version of the experience so they could scope the work and plan implementation.

The early prototypes had helped people judge the idea. Now I needed to work through the details: what the Care tab showed before a first session, how it changed when care was active, and what happened when recommendations, sessions and benefits competed for attention.

That meant refining the experience quickly enough to give Engineering time to build it. I continued working with Claude, testing changes with the internal team as I went.

A v1 in less than a week

Prototyping with claude

I worked through 56 prototypes with Claude, repeatedly testing and refining the Care experience with internal colleagues. I used each iteration to make the next design decision concrete: change the behaviour, try the experience and refine what was unclear.

As the number of care states grew, I developed Statecraft with Claude. It kept the prototype tied to explicit states and configuration, so I could explore how the interface responded to different care situations. The control panel gave me a way to work with those states while reviewing the resulting experience.

This made Claude useful throughout the design work. I could move between a proposed rule and a working version, bring it back to the team, and continue refining it. I remained responsible for the choices: which action took priority, how benefits were explained, and what the member needed to see.

In less than one week, I had v1 of the Care tab redesign ready to show Engineering for scoping. That was the immediate result of the iteration work: a version they could examine and plan around within the short delivery window.

The decisions that shaped that version started with entry into care, then followed the member through recommendations, sessions and funding limits.