IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0297675.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effects of co-designed physical activity interventions in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Amanda Zacharuk
  • Alison Ferguson
  • Chelsea Komar
  • Nicole Bentley
  • Alexandra Dempsey
  • Michelle Louwagie
  • Sachi O’Hoski
  • Cassandra D’Amore
  • Marla Beauchamp

Abstract

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:

Suggested Citation

  • Amanda Zacharuk & Alison Ferguson & Chelsea Komar & Nicole Bentley & Alexandra Dempsey & Michelle Louwagie & Sachi O’Hoski & Cassandra D’Amore & Marla Beauchamp, 2024. "The effects of co-designed physical activity interventions in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(5), pages 1-15, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0297675
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297675
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0297675
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0297675&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0297675?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0297675. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.