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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Guidelines for fall prevention in older adults recommend mobility screening for fall risk assessment; however, there is no consensus on which test to use and at what cutoff. This study aimed to determine the accuracy and optimal cut-off values of commonly used mobility tests for predicting falls in the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA). Methods Mobility tests at baseline included the Timed Up and Go (TUG), Single Leg Stance (SLS), chair-rise and gait speed. Inclusion criteria were: age ≥ 65 years and meeting first-level fall screening criteria (i.e. history of a fall or mobility problem) at baseline. Accuracy of fall prediction at 18-months for each test was measured by the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC). Results Of 1,121 participants that met inclusion criteria (mean age 75.2 ± 5.9 years; 66.6% women), 218 (19.4%) reported ≥one fall at 18 months. None of the tests achieved acceptable accuracy for identifying individuals with ≥one fall at follow-up. Among women 65–74 and 75–85 years, the TUG identified recurrent fallers (≥two falls) with optimal cut-off scores of 14.1 and 12.9 s (both AUCs 0.70), respectively. Among men 65–74 years, only the SLS showed acceptable accuracy (AUC 0.85) for identifying recurrent fallers with an optimal cutoff of 3.6 s. Conclusions Our findings indicate that commonly used mobility tests do not have sufficient discriminability to identify fallers in a population-based sample of community-dwelling older adults. The TUG and SLS can identify recurrent fallers; however, their accuracy and cut-off values vary by age and sex. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]