ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025
Key considerations and recommendations for recruiting older adults in physical activity studies.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- EEG-based assessment of sustained attention in geriatric inpatients: a feasibility study.GeroScience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite substantial evidence supporting the benefits of physical activity (PA) for older adults, participation rates remain low due to physical, psychological, social, and institutional barriers. Recruiting older adults for PA studies thus presents significant challenges, particularly for socially vulnerable populations and those facing digital literacy limitations in technology-assisted PA interventions. The present study aimed to articulate and establish a consensus among multidisciplinary and multinational PA experts regarding key considerations and requirements for designing and implementing recruitment of older adults for PA studies.
methodsThis study employed a mixed-methods consensus approach integrating a structured formal consensus process with a two-round Delphi survey. Through face-to-face and online discussions, an expert panel group formulated 104 initial recommendations regarding the recruitment of older adults for PA studies. In the first Delphi round, 42 external experts assessed the relevance of each recommendation, and recommendations with a ≥ 70% agreement threshold were considered consensual. The second round included 60 refined recommendations that were evaluated by 31 experts. A final consensus was reached through iterative expert panel discussions.
resultsOf the 104 initial recommendations, 52 (50%) met the inclusion threshold during the first round. In the second round of Delphi, 36 of the 60 revised recommendations (60%) achieved consensus, with agreement ranging from 71.0 to 96.8%. The final consensus process established 34 key recommendations categorized into four domains: (1) ethical principles (71.7-93.5%), (2) informed consent (71.0-96.8%), (3) stakeholder engagement (61.3-83.9%), and (4) recruitment strategies for technology-assisted PA interventions (74.2-87.1%). However, there remains a lack of consensus on the extent to which sociocultural diversity and differences in sample representation should be addressed.
conclusionsThis study provides expert-driven, consensus-based recommendations to improve the recruitment of older adults for PA studies. Adherence to ethical considerations, informed consent procedures, stakeholder collaboration, and tailored strategies for technology-assisted interventions were highlighted. These findings offer practical guidance for researchers and practitioners in planning and obtaining adequate participation in PA studies involving older adults.
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.