Background and Objectives Given population aging, the meaningful involvement of older adults in influencing policy and programs through participatory action research (PAR) is increasingly vital. PAR holds promise for equitable participation, co-learning, community mobilization, and personal and social transformation, however, little scholarly attention has been given to critically evaluating how PAR has been taken up with older adults. The objective of this review was to critically evaluate the use of PAR with older adults. Research Design and Methods A critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) of 40 PAR studies with older adults was conducted. Critical engagement with the articles identified dominant tendencies, limits of these tendencies, and proposed ways forward. Results Within the majority of articles reviewed, older adults were not prominent partners in PAR given their often limited involvement in designing the research questions, learning research skills and knowledge, and implementing findings for change. Furthermore, power differentials between researchers and older adults were evident, as older adults were often positioned as participants rather than partners. Finally, this article demonstrates various boundaries on the foci of studies related to inclusivity and sustainability. Discussion and Implications This study revealed that the promises PAR holds are often not fully realized in projects with older adults, given that they are rarely positioned as equitable partners, co-learners, or agents for change. The findings have the potential to stimulate further uptake of PAR research with an older adult population, highlighting areas for change in systems and research practices.

An evidence-based review was undertaken to answer the question, "What is the evidence for the effect of interventions designed to establish, modify, and maintain activities of daily living (ADLs), instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs), leisure, and social participation on quality of life (QOL), health and wellness, and client and caregiver satisfaction for people with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias?" A systematic search of electronic databases and application of inclusion and exclusion criteria guided the selection of 26 articles. Limited high-level evidence on ADL interventions was identified. IADL interventions for people living in the community showed promise. Tailored and activity-based leisure interventions were common and seemed to have positive impacts on caregiver satisfaction, and some interventions had positive results for client well-being and QOL. Social participation interventions focused on people with dementia still able to engage in verbal social interactions; these interventions had at least short-term positive effects.

The role of identity in older adults’ decision-making about assistive technology adoption has been suggested but not fully explored. This scoping review was conducted to understand better how older adults’ self-image and their desire to maintain this influence their decision-making processes regarding assistive technology adoption. Using the five-stage scoping review framework by Arksey and O'Malley, a total of 416 search combinations were run across nine databases, resulting in a final yield of 49 articles. From these 49 articles, five themes emerged: (a) resisting the negative reality of an ageing and/or disabled identity; (b) independence and control are key; (c) the aesthetic dimension of usability; (d) assistive technology as a last resort; and (e) privacy versus pragmatics. The findings highlight the importance of older adults’ desire to portray an identity consistent with independence, self-reliance and competence, and how this desire directly impacts their assistive technology decision-making adoption patterns. These findings aim to support the adoption of assistive technologies by older adults to facilitate engagement in meaningful activities, enable social participation within the community, and promote health and wellbeing in later life.

Within research addressing issues of social justice, there is a growing uptake of participatory action research (PAR) approaches that are ideally committed to equitable participation of community members in all phases of the research process in order to collaboratively enact social transformation. However, the utilization of such approaches has not always matched the ideal, with inconsistencies in how participation and action are incorporated. "Participation" within various research processes is displayed differently, with the involvement of community members varying from full participation to their involvement as simply participants for data collection. Similarly, "action" is varyingly enacted from researchers proposing research implications for policy and practice to the meaningful involvement of community members in facilitating social change. This inconsistency in how PAR is utilized, despite widespread publications outlining key principles and central tenets, suggests there are challenges preventing researchers from fully embracing and enacting the central tenets of equitable participation and social transformation. This article intends to provide one way forward, for scholars intending to more fully enact the central tenets of PAR, through critically discussing how, and to what extent, the principles of PAR were enacted within 14 key exemplars of PAR conducted with older adults. More specifically, we display and discuss key principles for enacting the full commitment of PAR, highlight a critical appraisal guide, critically analyze exemplars, and share strategies that researchers have used to address these commitments. The critical appraisal guide and associated research findings provide useful directions for researchers who desire to more fully embrace commitments and practices commensurate with enacting the promise of PAR for equitable collaboration and social transformation.

Seventeen measures met the inclusion criteria. Evidence suggests many tools do not have cutoff scores linked with on-road outcomes, although some had stronger evidence than others. Implications. When making a determination regarding driver fitness, clinicians should consider the psychometric properties of the tool as well as existing evidence concerning its utility in predicting on-road performance. Caution is warranted in using any one office-based tool to predict driving fitness; rather, a multifactorial-based assessment approach that includes physical, cognitive, and visual-perceptual components, is recommended.