The case for targeted needs assessment in allied health education design

As allied health educators, we carry the responsibility of preparing a workforce that’s not only clinically competent, but also socially responsive and culturally safe. Our graduates must be ready to work with real people in real communities, not theoretical “averages”.

Yet, despite the healthcare sector’s growing emphasis on inclusion, equity and cultural safety, the specific educational needs of allied health students working with diverse populations, in an area such as paramedicine, often remain under-examined and under-addressed.

When it comes to preparing students to support people from historically-underserved groups, we too often assume our standard curriculum will suffice. This assumption overlooks the realities of practice in a nonhomogeneous world. As a result, students may graduate unprepared, ultimately under-serving the communities they aim to support.

We think it’s time to move beyond surface-level inclusion and embrace evidence-informed, equity-driven curriculum reform.

At the heart of this shift is a simple but powerful tool – targeted needs assessment.

Rethinking ‘special populations’

Let’s start with a clarification. What has traditionally been referred to as “special populations” includes groups who may experience barriers to equitable healthcare due to systemic, cultural, or social factors.

This includes, but is not limited to:

• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders
• People with disability
• Individuals from refugee or asylum-seeker backgrounds
• Culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities
• LGBTIQA+ individuals
• Women
• People under 18
• Older adults
• People living in rural or remote communities.

While these groupings can be useful for identifying areas of inequity, the language we use to describe these populations matters because language shapes how we think and talk.

Research highlights a cognitive bias known as unitisation – the tendency to mentally group different individuals under a single label, leading to stereotyping and misinformed assumptions

When we use the term “special populations” uncritically, we risk reinforcing these mental shortcuts and distancing students from the people they’re meant to serve.

We prefer to use the term “population diversity” to reflect a more respectful and strengths-based framing – and to acknowledge that individuals may hold multiple, overlapping identities. This allows us to discuss the needs associated with specific characteristics or experiences within a population without grouping or defining people solely by a single trait.

These patients are not niche, rare, nor peripheral. They represent the everyday complexity of clinical practice, and working effectively with the Australian population requires more than clinical knowledge. It demands adaptable communication strategies, culturally-appropriate care models, and an awareness of how historical, social, and structural forces shape health needs and outcomes.

Preparing students to engage meaningfully with population diversity is not an optional enhancement to the curriculum – it’s a core capability of any contemporary health professional.

Our population has always been diverse, and it’s our responsibility to ensure our curricula reflect this reality, rather than defaulting to outdated norms or assumptions. Recognising this diversity is essential to both patient care and medical education.

Let’s stop framing this as “special” and start treating it as essential, because diversity, equity and inclusion in healthcare curricula is integral to equip professionals to advocate effectively for those they serve.

Ultimately, this can only contribute to improved outcomes and the development of more practitioners. Equity in education isn’t about adding content. It’s about transforming how we think, how we teach, and how students learn.

What’s working – and where there are gaps

Most allied health programs undergo periodic curriculum reviews, typically shaped by accreditation standards, graduate outcomes, or staff and student feedback. While these reviews are valuable, they often operate at a generalised level. This can overlook the granularity needed to assess how effectively the curriculum prepares students to engage effectively with all individuals within our diverse population.

Without structured alignment between student preparedness, population health needs, and professional expectations, we risk teaching based on assumptions. The result? Missed opportunities to build genuine cultural safety, applied confidence, and clinical impact in the very areas where it’s most needed.

We do want to acknowledge that change is happening. Across many allied health degrees, curricular initiatives – including equity and diversity-focused modules, cultural safety workshops, and community-based placements with marginalised groups – have been implemented. These efforts matter. But we must now ask harder questions:

● Is this work grounded in evidence?

● Is it consistent across disciplines and professions?

● Is it developed in partnership with the communities it’s intended to support?

● Is it truly equity-focused – or merely inclusive in appearance?

Even for those programs and initiatives that meet all of the above, we must still ask: Are they embedded deeply enough, sustained consistently, and scaled meaningfully across the full student experience?

Unfortunately, the history of health education has long lacked diversity, not only in curriculum content, but in the voices that shape it. As we transition towards more community-based, person-centred models of care, particularly in disciplines such as paramedicine, the need to rethink how we teach is imperative.

In these models, care is delivered in people’s homes, schools and community centres, not just hospitals, clinics or ambulances. This shift demands that our education models also move beyond clinical silos and actively reflect the lived realities of those we serve.

What we’re suggesting isn’t a novel idea, it’s a more structured and intentional way of doing what many educators are already trying to do – ensure our programs prepare students, represent all communities, and uphold professional standards. The creation of a targeted needs assessment tool can provide the framework we need to drive intentional, informed change.

The case for targeted needs assessment

Needs assessments have been used in education and health workforce planning for decades, often to identify skill gaps, prioritise content areas, or justify programmatic changes.

What’s missing, however, is a targeted approach, one that goes beyond general evaluation and focuses on the triangulation of three critical and often disconnected voices.

We envision this tool as a practical resource – a checklist or guide embedded into the curriculum design process. It will assist educators in ensuring that teaching is responsive, inclusive, and aligned with real-world expectations and needs, not just abstract ideals.

Unlike broad curriculum reviews, a targeted needs assessment acts as a diagnostic tool. It prompts course and unit designers to ask: For this specific population diversity, such as people with disability or CALD communities, have we adequately considered:

● What students need to learn: Do students feel equipped to engage confidently and appropriately with this population diversity? What knowledge, skills or experiences do they need to be capable in practice?

● What the community expects and wants us to understand: What do individuals and communities with this population diversity identify as essential in allied health care? What has been lacking in past interactions with health professionals? Just as importantly, what does the community want us to know about them – their values, lived experiences, demographic and socioeconomic context – and how can this be meaningfully incorporated into curriculum design?

● What the profession requires: What competencies, capabilities or priorities do clinicians, educators and professional bodies see as necessary for working effectively with this population diversity?

Bringing these perspectives together can inform a clear, practical roadmap for curriculum development, one that’s equitable, grounded, and deeply rooted in the realities of practice.

Our call to action: Laying the groundwork

We’re laying the foundations for the development of a targeted needs assessment tool designed to support curriculum design. Crucially, this tool will be co-designed, engaging students, community partners, and allied health professionals to ensure it reflects lived experience, professional relevance, and educational integrity.

A targeted needs assessment is not a silver bullet. But it is a powerful step towards ensuring our graduates are not only clinically capable, but socially-conscious, culturally-responsive, and prepared to deliver meaningful care in a diverse and complex world.

We invite colleagues across disciplines to begin asking these three critical questions in their own contexts:

● What assumptions are we making about student readiness?

● Whose voices are missing from curriculum design?

● Are we ensuring graduates are not just technically prepared, but socially and clinically-responsive?

Together, we must move beyond designing curricula around a “default” patient or practitioner, and instead recognise that equity isn’t achieved through equal exposure, but through purposeful, evidence-informed design. As AI, digital health and system-wide reform reshape healthcare, one thing remains unchanged – at its core, healthcare is about people.

When it comes to education for the people – all people – one size doesn’t fit all, and it never did.

If you’re interested in contributing to this research or being involved in the co-design process, we welcome your input. Please contact us to express your interest.