Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40756847›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Royal Society of New Zealand2025

Authentic co-design: an essential prerequisite to health equity in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Deborah Waireka Tuhi Goodwin, Amohia Boulton, Cherie Stayner, Jim Mann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors.

Deborah Waireka Tuhi GoodwinDBZ Consultancy Ltd, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Amohia BoultonWhakauae Research Services Ltd, Whanganui, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2041-3588
Cherie StaynerDepartment of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4411-2242
Jim MannDepartment of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4434-8979

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Current approaches to co-design with Māori and Pacific communities have varying success, highlighting the need for a clear and transparent understanding about the different ways that researchers and communities conceptualise and implement co-design. This study set out to identify key elements of co-designed research and health services important to working with, and achieving equity of health outcomes for, Māori and Pacific communities living in Aotearoa New Zealand. A qualitative evaluation of five research projects, which used co-design with partners from Māori and Pacific communities, involved interviews with researchers and community partners. A Kaupapa Māori framework developed to assess six principles important to Māori co-design was used, and data were coded and thematically analysed. Four additional principles of good co-design and nine lessons for improving the conduct of co-design research were identified. A conceptual model was developed, the Co-design Research Integrity Poutama, which defines increasing levels of co-design exemplified by greater levels of transparency and power-sharing. Authentic co-design of research and health services has a greater likelihood of achieving equitable health outcomes in Māori (the Indigenous People of Aotearoa New Zealand) and in other ethnicities experiencing similar inequities, notably Pacific Peoples, and to those experiencing racial and ethnic inequities worldwide.

Indexed as

Co-designcommunity-basedhealth equityIndigenousMāoripartnership

Identifiers

PMID40756847
PMCPMC12315192

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.