Search

BackgroundUser involvement is a requirement of most research funders. There is a growing body of literature exploring the benefits and challenges of user involvement in research, but such studies are scarce in the field of aging and health. Moreover, the majority of such research is qualitative, which limits the generalizability of results. The UserAge panel study will be instrumental in expanding knowledge that will benefit the quality and impact of user involvement in future research. ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to determine the awareness and understanding of and attitudes toward user involvement in research among different categories of knowledge users and researchers over time. MethodsA panel study will be implemented with 3 different categories of knowledge users (people aged 60 years and older, informal carers, and professionals in health care and architecture) and researchers in aging and health. A professional survey company will collect data from all samples in parallel. Potential participants will be asked to complete the survey via telephone or online, or participants can request a paper survey to be sent to them in the post. A draft set of questions on attitudes and behavioral patterns related to research utilization and user involvement in research was compiled based on existing literature and input from the research team. Using a participatory approach, we engaged a user forum, where 8 older people and 3 researchers jointly refined the survey for time/length to complete, terminology, readability, and context. Data collected via the internet or telephone will be automatically processed, and data collected on paper forms will be entered in machine-readable forms. The survey company will store all data and deliver the quality-controlled database to the university for further storage. Analyses of frequencies and measures of central tendency will be used for descriptive purposes. To compare groups, state-of-the art statistical analyses will be used. ResultsData collection for the first study wave started in September 2019 and will be completed in spring 2020. Data will be ready for analysis following cleaning and quality control, which started during summer 2020 and will be completed autumn 2020. We anticipate the data collection for the second study wave to start in September 2021. ConclusionsThis is the first quantitative large-scale panel study focusing on trends in attitudes toward, awareness of, and knowledge about user involvement in research on aging and health in Sweden. The results will generate new and important knowledge to advance the understanding of user needs and preferences as well as the relevance of user involvement in research on aging and health. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/17759

Background: Around 15% of the global population live with some form of disabilities and experience worse health outcomes, less participation in the community and are part of fewer activities outside the home. Outdoor mobility interventions aim to improve the ability to move, travel and orient outside the home and could influence the number of activities outside the home, participation and quality of life. However, outdoor mobility interventions may also lead to harm like falls or injuries or have unforeseen effects which could lead to mortality or hospitalization. Objectives: To assess the efficacy of interventions aiming to improve outdoor mobility for adults living with disabilities and to explore if the efficacy varies between different conditions and different intervention components. Search Methods: Standard, extensive Campbell search methods were used, including a total of 12 databases searched during January 2023, including trial registries. Selection Criteria: Only randomized controlled trials were included, focusing on people living with disabilities, comparing interventions to improve outdoor mobility to control interventions as well as comparing different types of interventions to improve outdoor mobility. Data Collection and Analysis: Standard methodological procedures expected by Campbell were used. The following important outcomes were 1. Activity outside the home; 2. Engagement in everyday life activities; 3. Participation; 4. Health‐related Quality of Life; 5. Major harms; 6. Minor harms. The impact of the interventions was evaluated in the shorter (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) after starting the intervention. Results are presented using risk ratios (RR), risk difference (RD), and standardized mean differences (SMD), with the associated confidence intervals (CI). The risk of bias 2‐tool and the GRADE‐framework were used to assess the certainty of the evidence. Main Results: The screening comprised of 12.894 studies and included 22 studies involving 2.675 people living with disabilities and identified 12 ongoing studies. All reported outcomes except one (reported in one study, some concerns of bias) had overall high risk of bias. Thirteen studies were conducted in participants with disabilities due to stroke, five studies with older adults living with disabilities, two studies with wheelchair users, one study in participants with disabilities after a hip fracture, and one study in participants with cognitive impairments. Skill training interventions versus control interventions (16 studies) The evidence is very uncertain about the benefits and harms of skill training interventions versus control interventions not aimed to improve outdoor mobility among all people living with disabilities both in the shorter term (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) for Activity outside the home; Participation; Health‐related Quality of Life; Major harms; and Minor harms, based on very low certainty evidence. Skill training interventions may improve engagement in everyday life activities among people with disabilities in the shorter term (RR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.16 to 1.84; I2 = 7%; RD: 0.15; 95% CI: −0.02 to 0.32; I2 = 71%; 692 participants; three studies; low certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain in the longer term, based on very low certainty evidence. Subgroup analysis of skill training interventions among people living with disabilities due to cognitive impairments suggests that such interventions may improve activity outside the home in the shorter term (SMD: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.81; I2 = NA; 118 participants; one study; low certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis of skill training interventions among people living with cognitive impairments suggests that such interventions may improve health‐related quality of life in the shorter term (SMD: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.88; I2 = NA; 118 participants; one study; low certainty evidence). Physical training interventions versus control interventions (five studies) The evidence is very uncertain about the benefits and harms of physical training interventions versus control interventions not aimed to improve outdoor mobility in the shorter term (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) for: Engagement in everyday life activities; Participation; Health‐related Quality of Life; Major harms; and Minor harms, based on very low certainty evidence. Physical training interventions may improve activity outside the home in the shorter (SMD: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.61; I2 = NA; 228 participants; one study; low certainty evidence) and longer term (≥7 months) (SMD: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.54; I2 = NA; 216 participants; one study; low certainty evidence). Comparison of different outdoor mobility interventions (one study) The evidence is very uncertain about the benefits and harms of outdoor mobility interventions of different lengths in the shorter term (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) for Activity outside the home; Engagement in everyday life activities; Participation; Health‐related Quality of Life; Major harms; and Minor harms, based on very low certainty evidence. No studies explored the efficacy of other types of interventions. Authors' Conclusions: Twenty‐two studies of interventions to improve outdoor mobility for people living with disabilities were identified, but the evidence still remains uncertain about most benefits and harms of these interventions, both in the short‐ and long term. This is primarily related to risk of bias, small underpowered studies and limited reporting of important outcomes for people living with disabilities. For people with disabilities, skill training interventions may improve engagement in everyday life in the short term, and improve activity outside the home and health‐related quality of life for people with cognitive impairments in the short term. Still, this is based on low certainty evidence from few studies and should be interpreted with caution. One study with low certainty evidence suggests that physical training interventions may improve activity outside the home in the short term. In addition, the effect sizes across all outcomes were considered small or trivial, and could be of limited relevance to people living with disabilities. The evidence is currently uncertain if there are interventions that can improve outdoor mobility for people with disabilities, and can improve other important outcomes, while avoiding harms. To guide decisions about the use of interventions to improve outdoor mobility, future studies should use more rigorous design and report important outcomes for people with disabilities to reduce the current uncertainty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim is to describe the development of a novel interdisciplinary graduate school, using the Swedish National Graduate School for Competitive Science on Ageing and Health (SWEAH) as a case example. We explore doctoral students' perceptions of being part of SWEAH and provide implications for practice. Written self-reports reflecting 78 students' experiences and perceptions were analyzed using thematic analysis. The findings reveal that affiliation with SWEAH is highly valued. The students emphasized the tailored courses and learning activities and reported that it was instrumental in deepening their knowledge and broadening their research perspectives. The findings demonstrate how students navigate between disciplinary and interdisciplinary contexts and become enculturated with intellectual mindset and understanding of the importance of network building. The graduate school adds an interdisciplinary layer of learning, influenced by peers and researchers, and demonstrates the importance of community building within interdisciplinary environments and how it can be achieved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]