Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39188109›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2024

Public Engagement in Health Policy-Making for Older Adults: A Systematic Search and Scoping Review.

Jeonghwa You, Rebecca Ganann, Michael Wilson, Soo Chan Carusone, Maggie MacNeil, Carly Whitmore, Andrea Dafel, Roma Dhamanaskar, Eugenia Ling, Lance Dingman and 7 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Methods for Involving People With Dementia in Health Policy and Guideline Development: A Scoping Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Jeonghwa YouDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.ORCID 0009-0006-8096-3326
Rebecca GanannSchool of Nursing, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Michael WilsonDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Soo Chan CarusoneDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Maggie MacNeilSchool of Nursing, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Carly WhitmoreSchool of Nursing, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-3974-4854
Andrea DafelDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Roma DhamanaskarDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Eugenia LingSchool of Nursing, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Lance DingmanMcMaster Collaborative for Health and Aging, Hamilton, Canada.
A Tina FalboMcMaster Collaborative for Health and Aging, Hamilton, Canada.
Michael KirkMcMaster Collaborative for Health and Aging, Hamilton, Canada.
Joyce LuyckxMcMaster Collaborative for Health and Aging, Hamilton, Canada.
Penelope PetrieMcMaster Collaborative for Health and Aging, Hamilton, Canada.
Donna WeldonMcMaster Collaborative for Health and Aging, Hamilton, Canada.
Katherine BootheDepartment of Political Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Julia AbelsonDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2907-2783

Funding

This study is funded by the McMaster Collaborative for Health and Aging.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAs the world's population ages, there has been increasing attention to developing health policies to support older adults. Engaging older adults in policy-making is one way to ensure that policy decisions align with their needs and priorities. However, ageist stereotypes often underestimate older adults' ability to participate in such initiatives. This scoping review aims to describe the characteristics and impacts of public engagement initiatives designed to help inform health policy-making for older adults.

methodsA systematic search of peer-reviewed and grey literature (English only) describing public engagement initiatives in health policy-making for older adults was conducted using six electronic databases, Google and the Participedia website. No geographical, methodological or time restrictions were applied to the search. Eligibility criteria were purposefully broad to capture a wide array of relevant engagement initiatives. The outcomes of interest included participants, engagement methods and reported impacts.

resultsThis review included 38 papers. The majority of public engagement initiatives were funded or initiated by governments or government agencies as a formal activity to address policy issues, compared to initiatives without a clear link to a specific policy-making process (e.g., research projects). While most initiatives engaged older adults as target participants, there was limited reporting on efforts to achieve participant diversity. Consultation-type engagement activities were most prevalent, compared to deliberative and collaborative approaches. Impacts of public engagement were frequently reported without formal evaluations. Notably, a few articles reported negative impacts of such initiatives.

conclusionThis review describes how public engagement practices have been conducted to help inform health policy-making for older adults and the documented impacts. The findings can assist policymakers, government staff, researchers and seniors' advocates in supporting the design and execution of public engagement initiatives in this policy sector. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Older adult partners from the McMaster University Collaborative for Health and Aging provided strategic advice throughout the key phases of this review, including developing a review protocol, data charting and synthesis and interpreting and presenting the review findings. This collaborative partnership was an essential aspect of this review, enhancing its relevance and meaningfulness for older adults.

Indexed as

Community ParticipationHealth PolicyPolicy MakingAgedHumanshealth policylong‐term careolder adultspublic engagementpublic involvementscoping reviewsenior

Identifiers

PMID39188109
PMCPMC11347750

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.