Participatory Action Research With Older Adults: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Given population aging, the meaningful involvement of older adults in influencing policy and programs through participatory action research (PAR) is increasingly vital. PAR holds promise for equitable participation, co-learning, community mobilization, and personal and social transformation, however, little scholarly attention has been given to critically evaluating how PAR has been taken up with older adults. The objective of this review was to critically evaluate the use of PAR with older adults. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) of 40 PAR studies with older adults was conducted. Critical engagement with the articles identified dominant tendencies, limits of these tendencies, and proposed ways forward. RESULTS: Within the majority of articles reviewed, older adults were not prominent partners in PAR given their often limited involvement in designing the research questions, learning research skills and knowledge, and implementing findings for change. Furthermore, power differentials between researchers and older adults were evident, as older adults were often positioned as participants rather than partners. Finally, this article demonstrates various boundaries on the foci of studies related to inclusivity and sustainability. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: This study revealed that the promises PAR holds are often not fully realized in projects with older adults, given that they are rarely positioned as equitable partners, co-learners, or agents for change. The findings have the potential to stimulate further uptake of PAR research with an older adult population, highlighting areas for change in systems and research practices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.200 | 0.217 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".