Methods for co‐designing health innovations with older adults: A rapid review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This paper reviews the methods used in research for co-designing health innovations with and for older adults. METHODS: A rapid review was performed following the Cochrane Rapid Review Methods Group recommendations and reported using the PRISMA statement. A keyword search was conducted in CINAHL, PsychINFO and Medline databases. RESULTS: Selection criteria yielded 13 peer-reviewed articles that reported on a total of 33 different co-design activities. Discussions and individual interviews were the most frequently reported activities in the selected articles and were used at each stage of the co-design process. CONCLUSION: To avoid the appearance of tokenism and to promote transparency, researchers need to provide more details about the involvement of older adults in the co-design process and the co-design activities performed. Health and design scientists should strive towards a meaningful involvement of older adults throughout the co-designing process and need to develop knowledge about the added value of co-design to support the use of such methods.
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 | 0.072 | 0.159 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".