Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40452125›Full record

ArticleAnatomical sciences education2026

"Because everybody's different": Co-designing body donor program consent processes.

Georgina C Stephens

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Anatomical sciences education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Georgina C StephensCentre for Human Anatomy Education, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9695-7592

Funding

Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While it is broadly accepted that body donation for anatomical education should rely on informed consent, consent processes vary substantially. Best practice guidelines for body donation are typically published by anatomical societies and may not reflect details valued by prospective donors or the educators and students who utilize donor bodies for teaching and learning. As an initial step to designing a consent process for a proposed body donor program at Monash University in Australia, this study brought together prospective body donors, students, and educators to explore their perspectives on donor consent. This study utilized co-design methodology, a form of participatory action research that values and includes diverse stakeholders to understand phenomena and inform change. The 22 study participants comprised 7 prospective donors who expressed interest in a future body donor program at Monash University, 9 students, 3 educators, and 3 participants who identified as educators and prospective body donors. Data were collected through 4 mixed stakeholder focus groups and were analyzed using thematic analysis. Four themes were developed: (1) Ethical and legal consent foundations, (2) Informed consent, (3) Individualized consent, and (4) Future-focused consent. While some findings support existing consent guidelines (e.g. informed consent requiring information adequacy), other findings highlight how consent processes could be expanded to incorporate community values. For instance, consent processes could include discussions between students and prospective donors and ensure that communication with prospective donors continues over time. Critically, consent processes should recognize that "everybody's different" and aim for inclusivity of diverse donor preferences.

Indexed as

AnatomyInformed ConsentTissue and Organ ProcurementTissue DonorsAdultAustraliaCadaverFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleStudentsUniversitiesYoung Adultanatomical gift programbody donationco‐designconsentinformed consentqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID40452125
PMCPMC12934379

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.