Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38730283›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2024

Community-based participatory-research through co-design: supporting collaboration from all sides of disability.

Cloe Benz, Will Scott-Jeffs, K A McKercher, Mai Welsh, Richard Norman, Delia Hendrie, Matthew Locantro, Suzanne Robinson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Experiences of culturally Deaf people with health care access and navigation in Ontario, Canada: a qualitative co-design study.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. An Age-Adapted Co-Design Methodology for Community Health Research Involving Older Adults With Type 2 Diabetes.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  18. Co-Design With Mothers and Professionals to Enhance Care for Mothers Experiencing Adversity: Development of the METIC Model.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Cloe BenzSchool of Population Health, Curtin University, Bentley, Australia. cloe.benz@curtin.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6950-8855
Will Scott-JeffsRocky Bay, Mosman Park, WA, Australia.
K A McKercherBeyond Sticky Notes, Sydney, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4417-585X
Mai WelshRocky Bay, Mosman Park, WA, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7818-0115
Richard NormanSchool of Population Health, Curtin University, Bentley, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3112-3893
Delia HendrieSchool of Population Health, Curtin University, Bentley, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5022-5281
Matthew LocantroRocky Bay, Mosman Park, WA, Australia.
Suzanne RobinsonSchool of Population Health, Curtin University, Bentley, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5703-6475

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs co-design and community-based participatory research gain traction in health and disability, the challenges and benefits of collaboratively conducting research need to be considered. Current literature supports using co-design to improve service quality and create more satisfactory services. However, while the 'why' of using co-design is well understood, there is limited literature on 'how' to co-design. We aimed to describe the application of co-design from start to finish within a specific case study and to reflect on the challenges and benefits created by specific process design choices.

methodsA telepractice re-design project has been a case study example of co-design. The co-design was co-facilitated by an embedded researcher and a peer researcher with lived experience of disability. Embedded in a Western Australian disability organisation, the co-design process included five workshops and a reflection session with a team of 10 lived experience and staff participants (referred to as co-designers) to produce a prototype telepractice model for testing.

resultsThe findings are divided into two components. The first describes the process design choices made throughout the co-design implementation case study. This is followed by a reflection on the benefits and challenges resulting from specific process design choices. The reflective process describes the co-designers' perspective and the researcher's and organisational experiences. Reflections of the co-designers include balancing idealism and realism, the value of small groups, ensuring accessibility and choice, and learning new skills and gaining new insights. The organisational and research-focused reflections included challenges between time for building relationships and the schedules of academic and organisational decision-making, the messiness of co-design juxtaposed with the processes of ethics applications, and the need for inclusive dissemination of findings.

conclusionsThe authors advocate that co-design is a useful and outcome-generating methodology that proactively enables the inclusion of people with disability and service providers through community-based participatory research and action. Through our experiences, we recommend community-based participatory research, specifically co-design, to generate creative thinking and service design.

Indexed as

Co-designCommunity-based participatory-researchDigital healthDisabilityEmbedded researcherLived experienceMethodPatient and public involvementTelepractice

Identifiers

PMID38730283
PMCPMC11084036

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.