Objective: To identify facilitators and barriers to older adults' participation in telehealth interventions for primary prevention and health promotion.Methods: Relevant articles were searched using keywords in Embase and MEDLINE. Study characteristics, type of telehealth interventions and technology involved, as well as facilitators and barriers to their use, were extracted from selected articles. The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 (UTAUT2) model was used to organise data.Results: A total of 24 articles (pertaining to 20 studies) were included. Nine facilitators and 11 barriers influencing the participation in telehealth interventions for primary prevention and health promotion among older adults were identified. The most recurrent facilitators were related to the individual's performance expectancy and effort expectancy, as well as the presence of a social dimension associated with the intervention (i.e. having a good relationship with the other participants in the program). The two most prevalent barriers were also related to effort expectancy and performance expectancy, followed by barriers related to the inherent characteristics of the technology and older adults' health condition. Experience, age and gender were also found to moderate technology use and acceptance.Conclusions: This rapid review highlights the importance of adopting a holistic perspective when designing telehealth interventions aimed at preventive and health promotion purposes among older adults.

Objective: This paper reviews the methods used in research for co‐designing health innovations with and for older adults. Methods: A 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. Results: Selection 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. Conclusion: To 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.

Objectives: This systematic review documents the content and the quality of the psychometric evidence concerning the utilization of the Community Integration Questionnaire for individuals living with a disability other than a traumatic brain injury. Data sources: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, OTseeker and PsycINFO (searched from inception to June 2019). Review methods: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were used for conducting and reporting this review. Studies that investigated at least one psychometric property of the Community Integration Questionnaire for individuals living with a disability other than traumatic brain injury were included. Data extraction and critical methodological appraisal of the articles (MacDermid checklist, COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments checklist) were independently performed and validated by the first two authors. Results: Ten studies representing 3000 individuals met the inclusion criteria. Five populations were documented. There are positive and trustable data regarding internal consistency for adults living with multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury or burns and in mixed samples ( α = 0.71–0.84). Construct validity is fairly documented for adults living with multiple sclerosis or aphasia and in mixed samples. Test–retest reliably is acceptable for adults living with multiple sclerosis (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.91–0.97) as well as responsiveness (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.81). Other psychometric properties could not be demonstrated sufficiently solid. Conclusion: Many psychometric properties of the Community Integration Questionnaire are still poorly evaluated for adults living with a disability other than a traumatic brain injury. However, promising data have been documented in each population included in this review.

1) To get an insight into the experience of aging with traumatic brain injury (TBI), and 2) explore intervention avenues perceived as promising for the social participation of this population.Throu...

Peer-led health promotion programs rely on community members to promote health-enhancing changes among their peers. Such programs are growing in popularity and, as a useful and relevant strategy to...

Supporting the social participation of individuals aging with long-term neurological disabilities is key to healthy aging. However, knowledge about the factors influencing their social participation remains limited and fragmented. Following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, this scoping review synthesized and integrated knowledge regarding the barriers and facilitators to the social participation of individuals aging with long-term neuro-disabilities. A search in four databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and EMBASE) resulted in 18 studies involving 2587 participants with nine neurological conditions: stroke, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, aphasia, post-polio syndrome, spina bifida, cerebral palsy, and muscular dystrophy. A total of 38 barriers, 25 facilitators, and 4 factors with mixed influence to social participation were identified. Key reported barriers included the organic system (e.g., fatigue or pain) and macro environments (e.g., inaccessible built environment). The most common facilitators involved physical dimensions in personal factors (e.g., good physical functions) and micro-environments (e.g., supportive social environment). This review highlights the need for accessible infrastructure and community support to promote inclusivity and equity. Future research should focus on community-level factors and mixed study designs to provide robust evidence to improve social participation and healthy aging in this vulnerable population.