Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39822923›Full record

ArticleLearning health systems2025

A bridge between worlds: Embedding research in telepractice co-design with disability community.

Cloe Benz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Learning health systems, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

1 author.

Cloe BenzSchool of Population Health, Faculty of Health Sciences Curtin University Bentley Western Australia Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6950-8855

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Co-production approaches are increasingly being advocated for as a way of addressing the research translatory gap while including patient and public involvement in development of services they access, and particularly in disability service provision. Embedded research (ER) is a method which integrates the researcher within the target organization to better facilitate both co-production of research outputs and the reduction of the research translation gap. The aim of this reflection is to better understand the commonalities and differences between ER in a disability context to accounts published in academic literature. Method: A review of embedded researcher literature was completed in combination with a personal reflection of lived experience as an embedded researcher within a disability support service organization. The reflective process included review of research journal entries and other records of lived experience (photographs, audio recordings, drawings) maintained throughout the period in the role of embedded researcher. A reflexive thematic analysis process was used. Results: I reflect throughout the article upon five themes which highlight both the commonalities between my experiences and those of other embedded researchers as well as instances where they differed. The five themes include (1) A knowledge bridge, (2) Considerations of positionality, (3) Ethical complexity, (4) Anticipating change, and (5) Existing in the in-between together. Conclusion: Experiences of ER appear to transcend the discipline in which the research is being embedded, and while the lived experience in a disability host organization was invaluable in facilitating a successful co-produced research project, significant avenues for improvement exist in terms of ethical frameworks, methodological guidance, and communities of support.

Indexed as

co‐designdisabilityembedded research

Identifiers

PMID39822923
PMCPMC11733457

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.