Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42575843›Full record

ArticleHealth promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals2026

True Co-Design: Buzzword or Breakthrough? The Value of Authentic Relationships in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Promotion.

Candace Angelo, Kate Robinson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. True Co-Design: Buzzword or Breakthrough? The Value of Authentic Relationships in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Promotion.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Candace AngeloThe University of Sydney, Faculty of Medicine and Health. Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5539-069X
Kate RobinsonThe University of Sydney, Faculty of Medicine and Health. Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-2035-9461

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As Aboriginal women, Registered Nurses, and health promotion and public health academics, our perspectives are shaped by both our lived experiences and our professional practice. We have worked across clinical care, health promotion, public health, research, and academia, partnering with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, health services, and organisations to improve health and wellbeing. These experiences have reinforced our understanding that meaningful and sustainable health promotion is built on relationships, trust, and shared decision-making, rather than simply the application of participatory methods. We wrote this commentary because we have become increasingly concerned that the term co-design is being used widely across research, policy and practice without always reflecting the principles it was intended to represent. Too often, co-design is reduced to consultation, workshops or the collection of community feedback, while decision-making power, and control remain with researchers, institutions or health services. In our experience, this not only undermines the intent of co-design but also risks reinforcing the very inequities that health promotion seeks to address. Our understanding of authentic co-design is informed by Aboriginal ways of knowing, being and doing, which recognise that relationships are not peripheral to the work; they are the work. Genuine partnership requires time to build trust, reciprocal relationships, mutual accountability, respect for community knowledge, and a willingness to share power throughout every stage of a project. These principles are not unique to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander contexts; rather, we believe they represent the foundations of effective health promotion with all communities. As nurses and health promoters, we have seen firsthand that programs developed with communities are more relevant, culturally safe, acceptable and sustainable than those developed for communities. Conversely, we have also witnessed the consequences of tokenistic engagement, where communities are invited to participate after key decisions have already been made. These experiences have shaped our conviction that authentic co-design is not a methodology to be applied, but a way of working that is grounded in humility, reciprocity and respect. We acknowledge that our perspectives are informed by our identities as Aboriginal women and by our professional experiences. While we do not claim to speak for all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples or communities, we offer this commentary from a position of shared experience and commitment to strengthening health promotion practice. We hope this paper contributes to an ongoing conversation about moving beyond co-design as a buzzword and toward approaches that genuinely redistribute power, privilege community expertise and foster authentic relationships capable of creating meaningful and lasting health change.

Indexed as

Health PromotionHealth Services, IndigenousAustraliaAustralian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander PeoplesHumans

Identifiers

PMID42575843
PMCPMC13457111

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.