The use of co-design in developing physical activity interventions for older adults: a scoping review protocol

Edward, H. Gayle; Constantin, Natalie; Ng, Hayley; Radisic, Anna; D’Asti, Alina; Yule, Amy; D’Amore, Cassandra; Reid, Julie; Beauchamp, Marla K.

doi:10.11124/jbies-21-00061

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Full details of the study methodology are outlined in the study protocol published elsewhere [27]. We followed standardized frameworks from Arksey and O'Malley, Levac et al, and the Joanna Briggs Institute when conducting this scoping review [28][29][30].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of co-design in developing physical activity interventions for older adults: a scoping review

Constantin

Edward

et al. 2022

BMC Geriatr

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract