ArticleThe clinical teacher2025
Person-Centred: Codesign With People With Disability to Improve Health Professions Education.
Article in The clinical teacher, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Person-Centred: Codesign With People With Disability to Improve Health Professions Education.The clinical teacher · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study used collaborative autoethnography (CAE) to explore the codesign process by investigating the experiences of team members involved in developing the Healthy Discussions Program, a 3-h educational programme designed to improve communication between health professionals and people with disability. The programme was developed collaboratively by the Office of the Public Advocate (OPA), OPA's Lived Experience Advisory Committee (LEAC) and academics from the University of Melbourne. Drawing on participatory design research methodology, this educational research explored the group's experience of codesign using collaborative autoethnography. Data were collected through individual and research team reflections as well as a focus group and interviews with LEAC members, followed by iterative thematic analysis. Five themes were identified describing the codesign process: (1) human rights, (2) power sharing, (3) open communication, (4) accessibility and inclusion and (5) collaborative leadership. Human rights were identified as a central driver, embedded within all other themes. Collaborators emphasised the need for authentic partnerships, inclusive communication, equitable remuneration, and support for long-term engagement. The CAE enabled the research team to critically reflect on assumptions, power dynamics and systemic barriers while exploring their positionality and fostering inclusive knowledge generation. This study contributes to emerging frontiers on codesigned health professional curricula by highlighting the human rights and relational elements essential for meaningful collaboration. It demonstrates how codesign, when grounded in rights-based and relational principles, can enrich tertiary health professions education development. The findings offer guiding principles for tertiary educators seeking to authentically codesign health education with the communities they aim to serve.
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.