ArticleThe clinical teacher2026
Participatory Action Research: Meaningful Student Involvement in Medical Curriculum Development.
Article in The clinical teacher, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOur medical school aimed to involve students in changes to the Year 4 curriculum. We had feedback from graduates; however, there was little guidance available on how to meaningfully involve students. Most literature regarding curriculum co-design in medical schools are case reports, with few using students in partnership such as in participatory action research (PAR). We used this process to determine how best to involve students in curriculum design.
methodsWe recruited Year 4 medical students to discuss their experiences of the current curriculum, their opinions on potential new curriculum options and their reflections on the experience of this co-design process. The PAR approach allowed researchers and participants to work in partnership to identify and analyse themes raised. We analysed transcripts of focus groups using reflexive thematic analysis.
resultsSix students attended three focus groups, sharing congruent experiences from diverse perspectives. We considered students' perspectives on partnership working in curriculum design in terms of three major relationships: the student-faculty relationship, the relationship to curriculum and the peer-to-peer relationship. We discuss these findings in relation to pedagogic and feminist theories and use Arnstein's ladder of citizen participation to assess our current and prospective level of involvement.
conclusionPrevious research has shown that involving students in curriculum design has benefits for both the students and the teaching institution. Our action-research project allowed the review of a potential new curriculum by the students and combined practice and theory to generate guidelines to be used for future involvement of medical students in curriculum co-design.
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.