Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

When co-design works (sort of): the case of the Australian elder abuse screening instrument.

Applying co-design methodologies is increasingly recommended for engaging diverse end-users and bridging evidence-practice gaps. Yet, one of the ongoing challenges for research using co-design is the lack of evidence as to whether co-design leads to better outcomes than not using co-design. In this article, we outline how, despite adhering to a time and resource intensive co-design process with strong moral and ethical foundations, its implementation by end-users led to mixed outcomes around improved elder abuse screening. We discuss the implications of these ambiguous results, arguing that "noise" in our data might be inevitable due to the inherent sensitivities associated with elder abuse screening and offer a polemical recommendation about why the Australian Elder Abuse Screening Instrument (AuSI) should nevertheless be rolled out.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app