Co‐creation of a student‐implemented allied health service in a First Nations remote community of East Arnhem Land, Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To co-create a culturally responsive student-implemented allied health service in a First Nations remote community and to determine the feasibility and acceptability of the service. DESIGN: Co-creation involved a pragmatic iterative process, based on participatory action research approaches. Feasibility and acceptability were determined using a mixed-method pre/postdesign. SETTING: The service was in Nhulunbuy, Yirrkala and surrounding remote First Nations communities of East Arnhem Land, Northern Territory, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Co-creation of the service was facilitated by the Northern Australia Research Network, guided by Indigenous Allied Health Australia leadership, with East Arnhem local community organisations and community members. Co-creation of the day-to-day service model involved local cultural consultants, service users and their families, staff of community organisations, students, supervisors, placement coordinators and a site administrator. FINDINGS: A reciprocal learning service model was co-created in which culturally responsive practice was embedded. The service was feasible and acceptable: it was delivered as intended; resources were adequate; the service management system was workable; and the service was acceptable. Health outcome measures, however, were not appropriate to demonstrate impact, particularly through the lens of the people of East Arnhem. Recommendations for the service included: continuing the reciprocal learning service model in the long term; expanding to include all age groups; and connecting with visiting and community-based services. CONCLUSION: The co-created service was feasible and acceptable. To demonstrate the impact of the service, measures of health service impact that are important to First Nations people living in remote communities of northern Australia are required.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".