Co-designing community-level integral interventions for active ageing: a systematic review from the lens of community-based participatory research

Gubing Wang; Fangyuan Chang; Zhenyu Gu; Dena Kasraian; Pieter J V van Wesemael

doi:10.1186/s12889-024-18195-5

Co-designing community-level integral interventions for active ageing: a systematic review from the lens of community-based participatory research

BMC Public Health. 2024 Mar 1;24(1):649. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-18195-5.

Authors

Gubing Wang^#^{1

2}, Fangyuan Chang^#³, Zhenyu Gu⁴, Dena Kasraian⁵, Pieter J V van Wesemael⁵

Affiliations

¹ Department of Medical and Clinical Psychology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands. g.wang_2@tilburguniversity.edu.
² Department of Built Environment, Urbanism and Urban Architecture, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands. g.wang_2@tilburguniversity.edu.
³ School of Design, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. fangyuanchang@sjtu.edu.cn.
⁴ School of Design, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
⁵ Department of Built Environment, Urbanism and Urban Architecture, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands.

^# Contributed equally.

Abstract

Background: While community-level interventions for promoting active ageing have received increasing attention and there is a trend to leverage technology to support traditional physical or social interventions, little hands-on guidance exists for designing these integral interventions. This study aimed to examine the interventions reported in the literature guided by Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) principles. The goal is to extract insights that inform future practices in co-designing integral interventions for active ageing.

Methods: The systematic review focused on community-level interventions promoting active ageing that integrated physical, social, and digital elements, i.e., integral interventions. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. The included interventions were analysed abductively based on the CBPR principles.

Results: A total of 13 studies were included, and 24 design considerations were generated under eight categories. Further reflection identified the interrelated nature of these design considerations and pinpointed the gaps in current research. This study highlights the urgency and importance of sharing recruitment methods and resource allocation details, recording and reporting collaboration specifics, and disseminating findings to stakeholders beyond academia.

Conclusions: This study offers valuable insights and practical guidance to researchers and practitioners developing community-level integral interventions for active ageing. The findings also serve as a starting point for accumulating knowledge and practice in co-designing integral interventions for active ageing at the community level. The next crucial phase involves evaluating these design considerations within real-world cases to assess their applicability and identify potential areas for improvement.

Keywords: Active ageing; Behaviour change; CBPR principles; Co-design; Community-based interventions; Design considerations; Elderly; Older adults; Participatory design; Systematic review.

Publication types

Systematic Review

MeSH terms

Aging*
Community-Based Participatory Research* / methods
Humans