Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40963440›Full record

ArticleThe clinical teacher2025

Person-Centred: Codesign With People With Disability to Improve Health Professions Education.

Donya Eghrari, Carolyn Cracknell, Michelle L Wilcox, Tarli Sali, Emma Asscher, Tess McCarthy, Joanne Bolton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

7 authors.

Donya EghrariFaculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4707-8249
Carolyn CracknellFaculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Michelle L WilcoxOffice of the Public Advocate, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Tarli SaliOffice of the Public Advocate, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Emma AsscherOffice of the Public Advocate, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Tess McCarthyOffice of the Public Advocate, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Joanne BoltonFaculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

Melbourne Disability Institute Seed Funding
6 · The paper itself

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

Health OccupationsHealth PersonnelPersons with DisabilitiesCommunicationCooperative BehaviorFocus GroupsHuman RightsHumansQualitative Researchcodesigncollaborative autoethnographycritical reflectiondisabilityhealth professions educationhuman rightspatient voice

Identifiers

PMID40963440
PMCPMC12444030

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.