The use of co-design in developing physical activity interventions for older adults: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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).
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 | 0.166 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.017 |
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".