Inductive content analysis (ICA) is a useful method for analyzing qualitative data in genetic counseling research. It is particularly relevant when the goal is to examine and improve practices or develop recommendations. Although ICA can be undertaken by a single analyst, ideally there is involvement of multiple analysts (or co‐coders). Co‐coding can bring many benefits to qualitative analysis that sits within a constructivist paradigm, including developing a representation of the data that is not only understandable to more than one individual but also richer and more nuanced. It also provides an opportunity for mentoring more junior researchers and can be an efficient way to analyze large datasets. However, co‐coding requires important planning and consideration, and there is currently a paucity of clear guidance. In this paper, we provide an outline of the small body of existing literature on this topic and propose six flexible step‐by‐step components of our approach to co‐coding in ICA, based on our own work. We have utilized it to analyze reporting practices and perspectives for diagnostic genomic sequencing, informed consent for genetic testing, data sharing and storage, and genomic newborn screening, among other topics. To illustrate these components, we present some example vignettes to show how these procedures can be applied in different scenarios and with different analysts.

Circus activities are emerging as an engaging and unique health intervention. This scoping review summarises the evidence on this topic for children and young people aged up to 24 years to map (a) participant characteristics, (b) intervention characteristics, (c) health and wellbeing outcomes, and (d) to identify evidence gaps. Using scoping review methodology, a systematic search of five databases and Google Scholar was conducted up to August 2022 for peer-reviewed and grey literature. Fifty-seven of 897 sources of evidence were included (42 unique interventions). Most interventions were undertaken with school-aged participants; however, four studies included participants with age ranges over 15 years. Interventions targeted both general populations and those with defined biopsychosocial challenges (e.g., cerebral palsy, mental illness, or homelessness). Most interventions utilised three or more circus disciplines and were undertaken in naturalistic leisure settings. Dosage could be calculated for 15 of the 42 interventions (range one-96 h). Improvements in physical and/or social-emotional outcomes were reported for all studies. There is emerging evidence of positive health outcomes resulting from circus activities used in general populations and those with defined biopsychosocial challenges. Future research should focus on detailed reporting of intervention elements and increasing the evidence base in preschool-aged children and within populations with the greatest need.

Introduction: Co‐design in health research involves patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in intervention or service design. Traditionally, co‐design is undertaken in‐person; however, exploring online delivery is warranted. PPIE in co‐design must be considered carefully, and assumptions that in‐person approaches will transition automatically to an online environment should be avoided. Currently, there are a lack of evidence‐informed approaches to facilitating co‐design online. This study aimed to develop and evaluate a framework for authentically adapting health research co‐design into an online environment.Materials and Methods: The initial framework was developed through a literature review, synthesis of in‐person co‐design principles, and alignment of online strategies. The framework was then applied to a co‐design project with 10 participants across relevant PPIE groups (end‐users [n = 4], clinicians [n = 2], coaches [n = 2] and clinician−researchers [n = 2]). Participants' experiences of the online co‐design process were evaluated via a mixed‐methods design using surveys and semi‐structured interviews. Evaluation data were analysed using descriptive statistics and reflexive thematic analysis to inform a revised framework.Results: The developed framework, Partnership‐focussed Principles‐driven Online co‐Design (P‐POD) was used to design eight 90 min online co‐design workshops. Evaluation data involved 46 survey responses, and eight participants were interviewed on project completion. Survey data indicated that the process was satisfying, engaging and adhered to the P‐POD framework. Themes derived from interview data describe a respectful and collaborative online culture, valuing of diverse perspectives and space for healthy debate, how power was perceived as being shared but not equal and multiple definitions of success within and beyond the process. A final, refined P‐POD framework is presented.Conclusion: With evaluation of the initial P‐POD framework showing evidence of adherence to co‐design principles, positive participant experiences and goal achievement for both the project and the participants, the refined P‐POD framework may be used and evaluated within future intervention or service design.Patient or Public Contribution: This study involved the participants (end‐users, clinicians and service providers) in the co‐design process described, interpretation of the results through member‐checking interview responses, assisting in development of the final framework and as co‐authors for this manuscript.

Preschool-aged children (three to five years old) born preterm participate in less physical activity (PA) than term-born children. Circus activities (a type of recreational PA) are a potential avenue to increase PA rates, but further insight into how to tailor these to address the participation gap is needed. This study investigated barriers and facilitators informing participation in recreational PA for preschool-aged children born extremely preterm and explored strategies to enhance participation in circus activities. Sequential mixed-methods study utilizing surveys (n = 217), interviews (n = 43), and a focus group (n = 6) with key stakeholder groups (parents, coaches, and clinicians). Qualitative data (Framework Method) and quantitative data (descriptive statistics) were mixed during preliminary and final analyses. Five themes were developed from the mixed data: the crucial role of the coach and the need for specific training, the therapeutic role of PA and promoting outcomes beyond the physical, the impact of communication and class planning, consideration of convenience and cost, and finally, the role of clinicians. Barriers, facilitators, and strategies were identified which may be used to modify or co-design circus-based PA interventions to enhance participation and improve rates of PA for preschool-aged children born extremely preterm.

Objective: This scoping review aims to map the evidence on circus activities described and/or evaluated as a health intervention for children, youths, and adolescents. Increased understanding of how these interventions work, and gaps identified, will allow researchers and practitioners to advance the science behind these approaches. Introduction: Circus activities are proposed in the literature as a health intervention, due to their variety, non-competitive nature, and potential to develop fundamental physical and social skills. For the purposes of this review, circus activities as a health intervention are defined as aerial, acrobatic, equilibristic, and manipulation skills taught to participants to maintain, improve, or modify health, functioning, or health conditions. Inclusion criteria: English-language evidence will be considered where circus activities as a health intervention are described and/or evaluated for participants up to 24 years of age, or who are defined as children, youths, or adolescents. Literature will be excluded where the focus of the intervention is clowning, magic, or drama games, or where circus activities are not the therapeutic part of the activity. Methods: MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL Complete (EBSCO), Scopus (Elsevier), PsycINFO (Ovid), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, and Google Scholar will be searched for peer-reviewed and gray literature. No restriction on dates, type, methodology, or setting will be imposed, but limits will include “human” and “English language.” Screening and data extraction will be performed by two independent reviewers. Reference lists of included sources will be screened. Results will be presented in diagrammatic or tabular format, alongside a narrative description, under headings aligning with the research sub-questions.