Cargando…
The use of co-design in developing physical activity interventions for older adults: a scoping review
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-d...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9358386/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35941570 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12877-022-03345-4 |
_version_ | 1784763919919742976 |
---|---|
author | Constantin, Natalie Edward, Holly Ng, Hayley Radisic, Anna Yule, Amy D’Asti, Alina D’Amore, Cassandra Reid, Julie C. Beauchamp, Marla |
author_facet | Constantin, Natalie Edward, Holly Ng, Hayley Radisic, Anna Yule, Amy D’Asti, Alina D’Amore, Cassandra Reid, Julie C. Beauchamp, Marla |
author_sort | Constantin, Natalie |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12877-022-03345-4. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9358386 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-93583862022-08-09 The use of co-design in developing physical activity interventions for older adults: a scoping review Constantin, Natalie Edward, Holly Ng, Hayley Radisic, Anna Yule, Amy D’Asti, Alina D’Amore, Cassandra Reid, Julie C. Beauchamp, Marla BMC Geriatr Research 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12877-022-03345-4. BioMed Central 2022-08-08 /pmc/articles/PMC9358386/ /pubmed/35941570 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12877-022-03345-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Constantin, Natalie Edward, Holly Ng, Hayley Radisic, Anna Yule, Amy D’Asti, Alina D’Amore, Cassandra Reid, Julie C. Beauchamp, Marla The use of co-design in developing physical activity interventions for older adults: a scoping review |
title | The use of co-design in developing physical activity interventions for older adults: a scoping review |
title_full | The use of co-design in developing physical activity interventions for older adults: a scoping review |
title_fullStr | The use of co-design in developing physical activity interventions for older adults: a scoping review |
title_full_unstemmed | The use of co-design in developing physical activity interventions for older adults: a scoping review |
title_short | The use of co-design in developing physical activity interventions for older adults: a scoping review |
title_sort | use of co-design in developing physical activity interventions for older adults: a scoping review |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9358386/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35941570 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12877-022-03345-4 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT constantinnatalie theuseofcodesignindevelopingphysicalactivityinterventionsforolderadultsascopingreview AT edwardholly theuseofcodesignindevelopingphysicalactivityinterventionsforolderadultsascopingreview AT nghayley theuseofcodesignindevelopingphysicalactivityinterventionsforolderadultsascopingreview AT radisicanna theuseofcodesignindevelopingphysicalactivityinterventionsforolderadultsascopingreview AT yuleamy theuseofcodesignindevelopingphysicalactivityinterventionsforolderadultsascopingreview AT dastialina theuseofcodesignindevelopingphysicalactivityinterventionsforolderadultsascopingreview AT damorecassandra theuseofcodesignindevelopingphysicalactivityinterventionsforolderadultsascopingreview AT reidjuliec theuseofcodesignindevelopingphysicalactivityinterventionsforolderadultsascopingreview AT beauchampmarla theuseofcodesignindevelopingphysicalactivityinterventionsforolderadultsascopingreview AT constantinnatalie useofcodesignindevelopingphysicalactivityinterventionsforolderadultsascopingreview AT edwardholly useofcodesignindevelopingphysicalactivityinterventionsforolderadultsascopingreview AT nghayley useofcodesignindevelopingphysicalactivityinterventionsforolderadultsascopingreview AT radisicanna useofcodesignindevelopingphysicalactivityinterventionsforolderadultsascopingreview AT yuleamy useofcodesignindevelopingphysicalactivityinterventionsforolderadultsascopingreview AT dastialina useofcodesignindevelopingphysicalactivityinterventionsforolderadultsascopingreview AT damorecassandra useofcodesignindevelopingphysicalactivityinterventionsforolderadultsascopingreview AT reidjuliec useofcodesignindevelopingphysicalactivityinterventionsforolderadultsascopingreview AT beauchampmarla useofcodesignindevelopingphysicalactivityinterventionsforolderadultsascopingreview |