ArticlePloS one2026
Co-design of a model for learning conversations about ongoing patient care between medical supervisors and trainees in the rural generalist settings: A research protocol.
Article in PloS one, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn rural generalist clinical settings, medical trainees routinely assess patients and discuss their findings with supervisors to plan ongoing care. These interactions termed 'learning conversations', serve as important opportunities for workplace-based learning and clinical decision making. However, preliminary evidence and stakeholder feedback indicate a lack of shared understanding regarding how these conversations should be structured, facilitated, and optimised. This study aims to observe current practices, identify supervisor and trainee learning needs, and co-design a model of learning conversations that enhances educational value and supports safe, effective patient care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will use an exploratory sequential mixed methods design structured around the 3Cs of co-design (Co-define, Co-design, Co-refine). Phase 1 (co-define) will involve qualitative observation and audio-recording of learning conversations across two rural hospitals to characterise current practice and inform a protype model. In Phase 2 (co-design), supervisor and trainee focus groups will explore perceived needs, expectations, and feedback on the prototype model. A national online survey of rural supervisors and trainees will further inform model refinement. Phase 3 (co-refine) will incorporate national stakeholder input through a workshop, followed by feasibility testing of the refined model during a pilot simulation at a Rural Clinical School. Outcome data will focus on model usability, perceived relevance, applicability across contexts, and users' experiences of employing the model during simulated learning conversations. DISCUSSION: This study will produce a stakeholder-informed model that responds to the specific learning and clinical needs of rural generalist practice. By embedding co-design throughout the research process, the resulting model is expected to strengthen learning conversations, optimise trainee learning, and enhance the quality and safety of patient care. The findings have potential applicability across broader health professional training contexts and can support workforce development in rural healthcare settings.
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.