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.)

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., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objective: The objective of this scoping review is to map the available evidence on the use of co-design in developing physical activity interventions for older adults., Introduction: Remaining physically active throughout life is important for maintaining independence and quality of life. Co-design is an effective way to engage end users in health-related policy development and health care interventions; however, the definition and operational use of co-design varies widely. This scoping review will summarize the available evidence on how co-design is used to engage older adults in physical activity interventions and identify areas for future research., Inclusion Criteria: Studies must have at least one participant aged 60 years or older and include concepts related to co-design and physical activity to be eligible for inclusion. Eligible studies must be original, peer-reviewed research., Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and AMED databases will be searched from inception to February 18, 2021. Following duplicate removal, titles and abstracts will be screened and selected according to predefined inclusion criteria by two or more independent reviewers. Kappa level of agreement will be calculated between reviewers for selection of titles and abstracts. The remaining full texts will be screened against inclusion criteria, and reasons for exclusion will be reported. Data will be extracted from included studies by two or more independent reviewers according to the Participant, Concept, Context framework. Information pertaining to the aims of this scoping review and the study methodology will be extracted and presented in tabular format, accompanied by a narrative summary., Scoping Review Registration Number: Open Science Framework Registration (osf.io/vsw2m)., Competing Interests: MB holds a Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Mobility, Aging, and Chronic Disease. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 JBI.)