ReviewAustralasian journal on ageing2025
Methods for co-designing health innovations with older adults: A rapid review.
Review in Australasian journal on ageing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- How do existing HRSN assessment tools assess social needs for older adults? A systematic review.Frontiers in health services · 2026Pooled it
- Intergenerational initiatives to support health and well-being of people aging with traumatic brain injury: an exploratory qualitative research protocol.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- BrainHealth 360: cognitive intervention for older adults designed using a participatory framework.Innovation in aging · 2026Article
- Methods for co-designing health innovations with older adults: A rapid review.Australasian journal on ageing · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis paper reviews the methods used in research for co-designing health innovations with and for older adults.
methodsA 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.
resultsSelection 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.
conclusionTo 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.
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.