ArticlePloS one2026
Leveraging design thinking to tackle contemporary admissions challenges in health professions education.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study illustrates the use of design thinking (DT) as a structured, participatory approach to explore contemporary complex challenges in health professions admissions, including the rise of generative AI, remote interviews, and the elimination of standardized admissions tests. This work focuses on stakeholder-driven problem framing and idea generation rather than evaluating outcomes.
methodsA two-hour workshop engaged 15 purposively sampled stakeholders, including faculty, staff, application readers, and student ambassadors, in collaborative problem framing, ideation, and rapid prototyping of admissions concepts. Generative artifacts (brainstorming outputs, reflection worksheets, facilitator notes) and post-session surveys were analyzed using thematic synthesis and descriptive statistics to characterize emergent ideas and participant perspectives. MAJOR
findingsParticipants generated ideas that clustered into three major themes: interview restructuring, GenAI integration and compliance, and broadening of admissions criteria, illustrating how stakeholders reframed challenges and proposed diverse solution pathways. Survey responses reflected descriptive indicators of participant experience, suggesting the workshop supported creative problem solving (Mean 4.7 ± 0.5), idea generation (4.8 ± 0.4), and collaboration (4.4 ± 0.5).
conclusionsFindings suggest that DT offers a structured, iterative framework for stakeholder-driven idea generation and problem reframing in an evolving admissions context. The workshop demonstrates the potential of collaborative, reflective processes to surface assumptions and generate diverse perspectives to inform future exploration of admissions practices.
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.