Co-creators’ experiences and effectiveness of co-created interventions in improving health behaviours of adults with non-communicable diseases: a systematic review protocol

IntroductionImproved health behaviours and help-seeking behaviour reduce morbidity and mortality from non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Compliance with the recommendations of lifestyle changes for the management of NCDs has been challenging, as patients find lifestyle behaviours difficult to change and sustain for a long period of time. Studies have reported that co-created interventions are promising in addressing negative health behaviours, and improving health outcomes in people with NCDs, however, no conclusive evidence exists. Therefore, this review aims to evaluate co-creators’ experiences and the effectiveness of co-created interventions in improving the health behaviours of individuals with NCDs.Methods and analysisThis review will follow the recommendations described in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline, and the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research (ENTREQ) statement for the synthesis of qualitative data. The following databases: Co-creation Database (https://zenodo.org/record/6773028#.Y9h2sezP1pg), MEDLINE (via OVID), CINAHL (via EBSCO Host), EMBASE (via OVID), PsycINFO (via OVID), Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and grey literature will be searched. The identified studies will be independently screened by two reviewers to determine their eligibility. The review will target to include studies that investigated the experiences of co-creators and/or the effectiveness of co-created interventions on the health behaviour and/or health outcomes of adults with NCDs. Two independent reviewers will also appraise the quality of the included studies, as well as data extraction. A narrative synthesis will be used to summarise the findings. Thematic synthesis and meta-analysis will be conducted for the qualitative and quantitative data respectively. The qualitative and quantitative findings will be integrated using the parallel result convergent synthesis.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not applicable because the review will only use data from published studies. The findings will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals, and conference presentations

Cocreators' experiences and effectiveness of cocreated interventions in improving health behaviours of adults with non-communicable diseases: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION: Improved health behaviours and help-seeking behaviour reduce morbidity and mortality from non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Compliance with the recommendations of lifestyle changes for the management of NCDs has been challenging, as patients find it difficult to change and sustain lifestyle behaviours for a long period of time. Studies have reported that cocreated interventions are promising in addressing negative health behaviours and improving health outcomes in people with NCDs; however, no conclusive evidence exists. Therefore, this review aims to evaluate cocreators' experiences and the effectiveness of cocreated interventions in improving the health behaviours of individuals with NCDs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review will follow the recommendations described in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline and the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research statement for the synthesis of qualitative data. The following databases: Co-creation Database (https://zenodo.org/record/6773028%23.Y9h2sezP1pg), MEDLINE (via OVID), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (via EBSCO Host), EMBASE (via OVID), PsycINFO (via OVID), Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and grey literature will be searched. The identified studies will be independently screened by two reviewers to determine their eligibility. The review will target to include studies that investigated the experiences of cocreators and/or the effectiveness of cocreated interventions on the health behaviour and/or health outcomes of adults with NCDs. Two independent reviewers will also appraise the quality of the included studies, as well as data extraction. A narrative synthesis will be used to summarise the findings. Thematic synthesis and meta-analysis will be conducted for the qualitative and quantitative data, respectively. The qualitative and quantitative findings will be integrated using the parallel result convergent synthesis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not applicable because the review will only use data from the published studies. The findings will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023391746.</p

Conducting co-creation for public health in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review and key informant perspectives on implementation barriers and facilitators

Background: There has been an increase in the use of co-creation for public health because of its claimed potential to increase an intervention’s impact, spark change and co-create knowledge. Still, little is reported on its use in low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs). This study offers a comprehensive overview of co-creation used in public-health-related interventions, including the interventions’ characteristics, and reported implementation barriers and facilitators. Methods: We conducted a systematic review within the Scopus and PubMed databases, a Google Scholar search, and a manual search in two grey literature databases related to participatory research. We further conducted eight interviews with first authors, randomly selected from included studies, to validate and enrich the systematic review findings. Results: Through our review, we identified a total of twenty-two studies conducted in twenty-four LMIC countries. Majority of the interventions were designed directly within the LMIC setting. Aside from one, all studies were published between 2019 and 2023. Most studies adopted a co-creation approach, while some reported on the use of co-production, co-design, and co-development, combined either with community-based participatory research, participatory action research or citizen science. Among the most reported implementation barriers, we found the challenge of understanding and accounting for systemic conditions, such as the individual’s socioeconomic status and concerns related to funding constraints and length of the process. Several studies described the importance of creating a safe space, relying on local resources, and involving existing stakeholders in the process from the development stage throughout, including future and potential implementors. High relevance was also given to the performance of a contextual and/or needs assessment and careful tailoring of strategies and methods. Conclusion: This study provides a systematic overview of previously conducted studies and of reported implementation barriers and facilitators. It identifies implementation barriers such as the setting’s systemic conditions, the socioeconomic status and funding constrains along with facilitators such as the involvement of local stakeholders and future implementors throughout, the tailoring of the process to the population of interest and participants and contextual assessment. By incorporating review and interview findings, the study aims to provide practical insights and recommendations for guiding future research and policy.</p

Setting priorities for ageing research in Africa: a systematic mapping review of 512 studies from sub-Saharan Africa

BACKGROUND: In 2040, the older population's growth rate in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) will be faster than those experienced by developed nations since 1950. In preparation for this growth, the National Institute on Aging commissioned the National Academies' Committee on Population to organize a workshop on advancing aging research in Africa. This meeting provided a platform for discussing some areas requiring improvement in aging research in SSA regions. We believed that conducting a systematic review of peer-reviewed articles to set priorities for aging research in SSA is warranted. Therefore, this article is the first in a Four-Part series that summaries the types and trends of peer-reviewed studies in SSA. METHODS: This systematic mapping review followed the Search-Appraisal-Synthesis-Analysis Framework. We systematically searched multiple databases from inception till February 2021 and included peer-reviewed articles conducted with/for older adults residing in SSA. Conventional content analysis was employed to categorize studies into subject-related areas. RESULTS: We included 512 studies (quantitative = 426, qualitative = 71 and mixed-method = 15). Studies were conducted in 32 countries. Quantitative studies included were observational studies: cross-sectional (n = 250, 59%), longitudinal (n = 126, 30%), and case-control (n = 12, 3%); and experimental studies: pre-post design (n = 4, 1%), randomized control trial (RCT, n = 12, 3%); and not reported (n = 21, 5%). Fifteen qualitative studies did not state their study design; where stated, study design ranged from descriptive (n = 14, 20%), ethnography (n = 12, 17%), grounded theory (n = 7, 10%), narrative (n = 5, 7%), phenomenology (n = 10, 14%), interpretative exploratory (n = 4, 6%), case studies (n = 4, 6%). Of the 15 mixed-method studies, seven did not state their mixed-method design. Where stated, design includes concurrent (n = 1), convergent (n = 1), cross-sectional (n = 3), informative (n = 1), sequential exploratory (n = 1) and retrospective (n = 2). Studies were classified into 30 (for quantitative studies) and seven (for qualitative and mixed-method) subject-related areas. HIV/AIDs-related and non-communicable diseases-related studies were the most predominant subject-related areas. No studies explored the transdisciplinary co-production of interventions. CONCLUSIONS: There are glaring gaps in ageing research in SSA, especially mixed-methods and RCTs. A large number of studies focused on HIV/AIDs and non-communicable disease-related studies. National and international funding agencies should set up priority funding competitions for transdisciplinary collaborations in ageing research

The relationship between kinaesthesia, motor performance, physical fitness and joint mobility in children with and without joint hypermobility in Nigeria

Background: Some children with generalized joint hypermobility (GJH) develop symptoms at some point, which could negatively affect their overall health status. When GJH presents with symptoms, it is described as benign joint hypermobility syndrome (BJHS). Some of the symptoms may include pain, soft tissue injuries, and early onset osteoarthritis. The factors that may predict the development of symptoms in people with GJH have not been established. It is important to explore and identify the factors that modulate the clinical outcomes of children with joint hypermobility, and the factors that predispose some children to developing BJHS). Exploring these factors will help in establishing indicators to observe in longitudinal studies to identify causality, and in developing interventions that will be specifically targeted at influencing those modulators. Aims: to determine the relationship between kinaesthesia, motor performance, fitness and joint mobility in children, and to also determine if kinaesthesia, motor performance, fitness are different in children diagnosed with GJH compared to those who have normal mobility. Methods: a cross-sectional, analytical study was conducted involving children from two primary schools in South-Eastern part of Nigeria. The Beighton criteria were used for the classification of GJH, while using a cut-off of ≥ 6 out of the 9-maximum score. The children were allocated into two groups: children with GJH, and children with normal mobility (NM). Motor performance, fitness and kinaesthesia were measured in all the children. Motor performance and fitness were measured using the performance and fitness battery (PERF-FIT), while kinaesthesia was measured using wedges. Partial correlation was used to evaluate the relationship between the outcomes, while controlling for age and BMI. The non-parametric ANCOVA test (Quade's test) was used to evaluate the differences in the outcomes (motor performance, fitness, and kinaesthesia) between children with GJH and children with NM, while also controlling for age and BMI. Results: A total of 91 children (51.6% girls, and 48.4% boys) participated in the study. The mean age of the children was 8.20 ± 1.98. GJH was identified in a total of 35 (38.46%) children, while 56 (61.54%) children had normal mobility. GJH was more frequent in females (60.0%) than in males (40.0%). There was no statistically significant correlation between joint mobility and kinaesthesia. There was also no statistically significant correlation between joint mobility and motor performance items, as well as the fitness items. There was a statistically significant positive correlation between kinaesthesia and some motor performance items including ball bounce, ball throw and dynamic balance, as well as a significant negative correlation between kinaesthesia and one fitness item- ladder run. Furthermore, there was a statistically significant positive correlation between age and kinaesthesia (correct wedges discrimination). The study also showed that motor performance items, kinaesthesia, and most fitness items, did not differ significantly between children with GJH and children with NM. Conclusion: Joint mobility may not have a significant influence on motor performance and fitness in children that are still at their early stage of growth. Kinaesthesia may be an important factor to consider in children, as it had significant correlations with some motor performance and a fitness item. Furthermore, kinaesthesia is better when the children are older

Cocreators' experiences and effectiveness of cocreated interventions in improving health behaviours of adults with non-communicable diseases: a systematic review protocol

&lt;p&gt;Introduction:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Improved health behaviours and help seeking behaviour reduce morbidity and mortality from non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Compliance with the recommendations of lifestyle changes for the management of NCDs has been challenging, as patients find it difficult to change and sustain lifestyle behaviours for a long period of time. Studies have reported that cocreated interventions are promising in addressing negative health behaviours and improving health outcomes in people with NCDs; however, no conclusive evidence exists. Therefore, this review aims to evaluate cocreators' experiences and the effectiveness of cocreated interventions in improving the health behaviours of individuals with NCDs.&nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Methods and analysis:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;This review will follow the recommendations described in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline and the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research statement for the synthesis of qualitative data. The following databases: Cocreation Database (https://zenodo.org/record/6773028#. Y9h2sezP1pg), MEDLINE (via OVID), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (via EBSCO Host), EMBASE (via OVID), PsycINFO (via OVID), Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and grey literature will be searched. The identified studies will be independently screened by two reviewers to determine their eligibility. The review will target to include studies that investigated the experiences of cocreators and/or the effectiveness of cocreated interventions on the health behaviour and/ or health outcomes of adults with NCDs. Two independent reviewers will also appraise the quality of the included studies, as well as data extraction. A narrative synthesis will be used to summarise the findings. Thematic synthesis and meta-analysis will be conducted for the qualitative and quantitative data, respectively. The qualitative and quantitative findings will be integrated using the parallel result convergent synthesis.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ethics and dissemination:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ethics approval is not applicable because the review will only use data from the published studies. The findings will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.&lt;/p&gt