ArticlePerspectives on medical education2025
Fueling Inner Resources Through Co-Creation: A Scoping Review on the Impact of Co-Creation of Education on Learners' Well-Being.
Article in Perspectives on medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Learner-Educator Co-creation of Student Assessment in Health Professional Education Courses: A Scoping Review.Campbell systematic reviews · 2026Review
- Psychiatry in transition: an assessment in the context of societal change.Annals of general psychiatry · 2026Article
- Presence 5 for trauma informed care: teaching tangible practices towards bidirectional healing in undergraduate medical education.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Letter to the editor: New European training requirements for post-graduate training in CAP.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Co-creation is gaining momentum in health professions education with positive effects on learners' engagement and motivation. Concurrently, emotional challenges faced by learners-such as stress, anxiety, burnout, and depression-continue to be a problem for health professions education leaders. This review seeks to explore how learners' active participation in shaping their educational experience may influence their well-being. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINHAL. We included studies conducted within a health professions education context, which involved learners in curriculum design processes, and reported outcomes related to learners' well-being. We used Seligman's PERMA model to report these terms. Results: Of 4222 reviewed articles, 24 met the inclusion criteria. All studies reported outcomes related to learners' well-being across the five domains of the PERMA model: Positive Emotions (n = 23), Meaning (n = 20), Positive Relationships (n = 10), Engagement (n = 4), and Accomplishment (n = 4). Studies describing a true student-staff partnership approach (n = 17) involved smaller learner groups, focused on developing new curricula reported outcomes related to learners' positive well-being in all five domains. Studies describing pseudo-partnership (N = 7) also reported positive learner well-being, but not in all domains, and mostly focused in the context of developing extracurricular mental health initiatives. Conclusions: Co-creation, especially when true student-staff partnership is used, can have a positive influence on learners' well-being. This underscores the importance of empowering learners to participate in shaping their education. Lessons learned from this review may encourage curriculum planners and education leaders to create opportunities and initiatives for involving learners in the design of their education.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.