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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Constantin, Natalie, Edward, Holly, Ng, Hayley, Radisic, Anna, Yule, Amy, D’Asti, Alina, D’Amore, Cassandra, Reid, Julie C., Beauchamp, Marla
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