Search

Background: Physical activity (PA) declines with age despite the knowledge that physical inactivity is a leading cause of disease, death, and disability worldwide. To better tailor PA interventions to older adults, researchers are turning to the collaborative principles of co-design. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the effectiveness of co-designed PA interventions and standard care for increasing PA and other health outcomes (i.e., physical function, quality of life, mental health, functional independence, attendance and attrition rates) in older adults., Methods: A search was conducted in MEDLINE, AgeLine, CINAHL, Embase, and SPORTDiscus. Records were screened by independent pairs of reviewers. Primary research studies conducted among community-dwelling older adults (age 60+) comparing co-designed PA interventions to standard care were considered for inclusion. Controls included wait-list control, usual care, sham interventions, PA interventions without the use of co-design, and no intervention. A random effects meta-analysis was conducted, and the standardized mean difference (SMD) was used to report effect estimates. Quality of evidence was rated using GRADE., Results: Of 16,191 studies screened, eight (N = 16,733) were included in this review. Most studies reported results favouring the effect of co-design on physical activity; however, only two studies (N = 433) could be pooled for meta-analysis resulting in a SMD of 0.28, (95% CI = -0.13 to 0.69; p = 0.19; I2 = 56%) immediately post-intervention. The GRADE quality of evidence was very low. The quantitative analysis of three studies reported improved physical function., Conclusion: This review did not demonstrate that co-designed PA interventions are more effective than standard care for increasing PA in older adults; however, evidence was limited and of very low quality. Further well-designed trials are warranted to better understand the impacts of co-designed PA interventions and how to best implement them into practice., Trial Registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022314217., Competing Interests: The authors have read the journal’s policy and have the following competing interests: MB is supported by a Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Mobility, Aging and Chronic Disease award (950-233142) as Canada Research Chair (https://www.chairs-chaires.gc.ca/) outside of the submitted work. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials., (Copyright: © 2024 Zacharuk et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: This is a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and a meta-analysis comparing smart technology with face-to-face physical activity (PA) interventions in community-dwelling older adults (mean age 60 years)., Objective: This study aims to determine the effect of interventions including smart technology components compared with face-to-face PA interventions on PA and physical function in older adults. The secondary outcomes are depression, anxiety, and health-related quality of life., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and AMED electronic databases from inception to February 2021. Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full texts and performed data extraction and risk of bias assessments using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was used to evaluate the quality of the evidence. We provided a narrative synthesis on all included studies and, where possible, performed meta-analyses for similar outcomes., Results: This review included 19 studies with a total of 3455 participants. Random effects meta-analyses showed that interventions with smart technology components resulted in improved step count (mean difference 1440 steps, 95% CI 500-2390) and total PA (standardized mean difference 0.17, 95% CI 0.02-0.32) compared with face-to-face alone. There was no difference between groups in terms of the measures of physical function. Smart technology alone did not show significant differences between groups in any outcome. The quality of the evidence was very low based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria., Conclusions: Interventions that include smart technology may improve daily step counts by an average of 1440 steps in community-dwelling older adults; however, the quality of the evidence was very low. Future studies are needed to improve the certainty of these results., Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020135232; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=135232., (©Cassandra D'Amore, Julie C Reid, Matthew Chan, Samuel Fan, Amanda Huang, Jonathan Louie, Andy Tran, Stephanie Chauvin, Marla K Beauchamp. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 31.10.2022.)

Objective: The aim of this review is to summarize the evidence for determinants of physical activity in older adults., Introduction: Physical activity is an important predictor of multi-morbidity, falls, and cognitive decline in older adulthood. Understanding what influences older adults' physical activity behavior is an important first step for guiding effective interventions for promoting physical activity in this population., Inclusion Criteria: This umbrella review will include systematic reviews (including scoping reviews) reporting on the relationship between determinants (also referred to as correlates or factors), measured by either self-report or direct measurement, and physical activity in adults ≥60 years., Methods: A systematic search of six databases will be completed in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and AgeLine. Two independent reviewers will screen titles, abstracts, and full-text articles, and perform data extraction and quality assessment. Evidence for determinants of physical activity will be synthesized using the socio-ecological model. If possible, evidence will be compared by study design, type of physical activity, outcome measure used, setting, and sex., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020159332., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 JBI.)

Objective: The objective of this review is to determine the effect of physical activity interventions delivered via smart technology compared with face-to-face interventions for improving physical activity and physical function in older adults., Introduction: Physical activity is a modifiable risk factor for multiple noncommunicable diseases and reduces the risk of premature mortality. Despite this, one in four adults does not meet recommended levels of physical activity. This pattern of inactivity increases with age. Smart technology, such as wearables, tablets, or laptops, is one solution for improving physical activity. Research has shown that different smart technology solutions can increase physical activity in older adults. While individual studies support smart technology to increase physical activity, there are no systematic reviews comparing the effects of smart technology with traditional face-to-face physical activity interventions., Inclusion Criteria: We will include randomized controlled trials of physical activity interventions delivered via smart technology (eg, wearables, tablets, computers) compared with face-to-face (ie, in person) interventions for community-dwelling older adults aged 60 years or older., Methods: We will search four databases (AMED, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE) from inception for relevant studies. All abstracts and full texts will be screened independently and in duplicate. Risk of bias, data extraction, and quality assessment will be completed in the same manner. If possible, a meta-analysis will be performed of the primary outcomes of physical activity, physical function, and adherence rate. Subgroup analyses will be conducted by type of physical activity, and type of smart technology, where possible., Systematic Review Registration Number: PROSPERO CRD42020135232., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 JBI.)