Author:
Constantin Natalie,Edward Holly,Ng Hayley,Radisic Anna,Yule Amy,D’Asti Alina,D’Amore Cassandra,Reid Julie C.,Beauchamp Marla
Abstract
Abstract
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.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Geriatrics and Gerontology
Reference76 articles.
1. Boyd H, McKernon S, Mullin B, Old A. Improving healthcare through the use of co-design. N Z Med J. 2012;125(1357):76–87.
2. Slattery P, Saeri AK, Bragge P. Research co-design in health: a rapid overview of reviews. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):17.
3. Batalden M, Batalden P, Margolis P, Seid M, Armstrong G, Opipari-Arrigan L, et al. Coproduction of healthcare service. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;25(7):509–17.
4. Frank L, Basch E, Selby JV. For the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The PCORI perspective on patient-centered outcomes research. JAMA. 2014;312(15):1513–4.
5. Donetto S, Pierri P, Tsianakas V, Robert G. Experience-based co-design and healthcare improvement: realizing participatory Design in the Public Sector. Des J. 2015;18(2):227–48.
Cited by
13 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献