Background Promoting physical activity (PA) participation in older adults is important for preserving quality of life and functional independence. Co-design has been shown to increase engagement of end-users in health-related policies and interventions. This scoping review aimed to examine how co-design has been used to develop PA interventions for older adults. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, and CINAHL. Peer-reviewed primary research studies that met the following criteria were included: had at least one participant aged ≥60 years involved in the co-design process and the intervention was delivered to individuals whose mean age was ≥60, used co-design methodologies, and any form of PA. After duplicate removal, two or more independent reviewers completed title and abstract and full text screening. Data were extracted from the included studies according to study aims. Results Of the 29 included studies, 12 different terms were used to describe co-design with variable operational definitions that we consolidated into five proposed components. Fifteen studies engaged users in a consultative way, 13 studies using collaboration, and one study engaged end-users in consumer-control. No studies involved end-users in the dissemination phase. Further, no studies directly measured the effectiveness of the co-design process. Five categories of barriers and facilitators to co-design were identified including frameworks and methodologies, logistics, relationships, participation, and generalizability. Conclusions There is a large degree of variability in how co-design is used to develop PA interventions for older adults. Our findings can be used by researchers to improve rigor and standardization in this emerging field. Trial registration osf.io/vsw2m.

Objective: The objective of this scoping review is to map the available evidence on the use of co-design in developing physical activity interventions for older adults. Introduction: Remaining physically active throughout life is important for maintaining independence and quality of life. Co-design is an effective way to engage end users in health-related policy development and health care interventions; however, the definition and operational use of co-design varies widely. This scoping review will summarize the available evidence on how co-design is used to engage older adults in physical activity interventions and identify areas for future research. Inclusion criteria: Studies must have at least one participant aged 60 years or older and include concepts related to co-design and physical activity to be eligible for inclusion. Eligible studies must be original, peer-reviewed research. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and AMED databases will be searched from inception to February 18, 2021. Following duplicate removal, titles and abstracts will be screened and selected according to predefined inclusion criteria by two or more independent reviewers. Kappa level of agreement will be calculated between reviewers for selection of titles and abstracts. The remaining full texts will be screened against inclusion criteria, and reasons for exclusion will be reported. Data will be extracted from included studies by two or more independent reviewers according to the Participant, Concept, Context framework. Information pertaining to the aims of this scoping review and the study methodology will be extracted and presented in tabular format, accompanied by a narrative summary. Scoping review registration number: Open Science Framework Registration (osf.io/vsw2m)

Background: Promoting physical activity (PA) participation in older adults is important for preserving quality of life and functional independence. Co-design has been shown to increase engagement of end-users in health-related policies and interventions. This scoping review aimed to examine how co-design has been used to develop PA interventions for older adults. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, and CINAHL. Peer-reviewed primary research studies that met the following criteria were included: had at least one participant aged ≥ 60 years involved in the co-design process and the intervention was delivered to individuals whose mean age was ≥ 60, used co-design methodologies, and any form of PA. After duplicate removal, two or more independent reviewers completed title and abstract and full text screening. Data were extracted from the included studies according to study aims. Results: Of the 29 included studies, 12 different terms were used to describe co-design with variable operational definitions that we consolidated into five proposed components. Fifteen studies engaged users in a consultative way, 13 studies using collaboration, and one study engaged end-users in consumer-control. No studies involved end-users in the dissemination phase. Further, no studies directly measured the effectiveness of the co-design process. Five categories of barriers and facilitators to co-design were identified including frameworks and methodologies, logistics, relationships, participation, and generalizability. Conclusions: There is a large degree of variability in how co-design is used to develop PA interventions for older adults. Our findings can be used by researchers to improve rigor and standardization in this emerging field. OSF registration: osf.io/vsw2m