ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2024
Development and evaluation of an anti-ageism advisory group with older adults and gerontological experts: a qualitative descriptive study.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
- Feasibility and pilot testing of a non-randomized teacher training program to improve knowledge and attitudes toward aging and dementia in public schools in Brazil: The ARISE program.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn recent years, academics have increasingly acknowledged the importance of involving health service users and community stakeholders as active partners in health research. Yet, the involvement of older adults, the largest group of health service users, as research partners remains limited, possibly due to ageist attitudes that devalue older adults' contributions. During the three years of our Awakening Canadians to Ageism study, we convened an advisory group consisting of older adults and gerontological experts to discuss issues related to ageism, help interpret the study findings, and develop a range of knowledge mobilization strategies to dispel ageism.
methodsTo understand the experiences of members of the advisory group and solicit recommendations for improving future groups, we conducted a qualitative descriptive study and interviewed 8 older adults and 6 gerontological experts. Data were content analyzed.
resultsFour categories that were developed to explain participants' experiences and suggestions for future advisory groups included: organization and management, group experience, suggestions for future advisory groups and moving forward. A key finding was the value that the older adults and gerontological experts ascribed to conversations about the prevalence of ageism and their desire to continue these types of conversations in their personal groups and professional networks. Numerous helpful strategies for future advisory groups were identified, such as enhancing social diversity, both in terms of racial/ethnic/cultural representation and gender. Older adults wanted more "getting to know you time" in meetings and gerontological experts wanted more details about the research process and their role.
conclusionsThis study's partnership approach can guide researchers seeking to involve key health service users and community stakeholders in health research and help enact positive social change.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.