Living in compact neighbourhoods that are walkable, well connected, with accessible green space can benefit physical and mental health. However, the pandemic raises concern up to what extent features of compact neighbourhood design affect transmission of viral respiratory infections. We conducted a systematic review to identify, appraise and synthesise evidence reporting associations between transmission of respiratory viruses, including Covid-19, and dwelling or population density or other features of neighbourhood design. Twenty-one studies met our inclusion criteria. These studies used different measures of neighbourhood design, contributing to inconsistent findings. Whereas no convincing conclusion can be drawn here, the outcome of this review indicates that robust, global evidence is warranted to inform future policies and legislation concerned with compact neighbourhood design and transmission of respiratory and viral infection.

Health and social care services are increasingly shaped by the emergence of new digital developments. Research suggests that older adults are less likely to use digital devices and, therefore, risk missing out on essential health and social care services as these become more digital by design. We carried out an exploratory literature review using the terms ‘onboarding’ and ‘offboarding’ within the design, engineering, health, and social science literature to understand how researchers are currently thinking about older adults’ digital service needs, informed by discussions of stakeholder engagement with older adults in Edinburgh to explore their own experiences of digital transitions. The review process was implemented based on the methodology of Arksey and O’Malley for scoping reviews, and the findings were reported according to the PRISMA-ScR checklist. The databases used were Web of Science, PubMed, CINAHL Plus, IEEE Xplore, Engineering Village, PsycINFO, ASSIA and ACM. In total, 18 studies were finally included. Our findings show different interpretations of onboarding across disciplines and a lack of use of offboarding in the design of digital interventions. Additionally, our findings reveal inequalities in digital onboarding, as evidenced by the limited number of studies. Finally, we share a snapshot of our findings, together with reflections on interdisciplinary and collaborative processes.

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), often self-report questionnaires, capture a patient’s health status as reported directly by the patient. PROMs are increasingly being used to collect patients’ perspectives regarding health outcomes influencing their treatment and broader decisions about intervention efficacy, reimbursement, and service provision. Concerns are growing about how fit-for-purpose many PROMs are, with implications for health inequity. Health researchers are starting to explore how intersectionality can be used to understand health inequity, but intersectionality is rarely discussed in PROM development literature. This study sought to understand and explore PROM researchers’ views about using intersectional approaches to develop fit-for-purpose PROMs. Methodology: Semi-structured interviews were conducted online with PROM researchers ( n = 8) who both had and had not previously engaged with intersectionality. Interviews focused on perceived barriers to using intersectionality to inform PROM development and how such barriers could be overcome. With consent, interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed using a reflexive thematic approach. Results: Participants reported limited understanding about intersectionality in the health outcomes field and how it can inform more fit-for-purpose PROM development. Concerns about methodological rigour in PROM development were also cited with participants noting that if existing shortcomings in how PROMs are developed are not recognised, it would be challenging to persuade researchers to change practices. Another challenge raised was reaching certain groups to participate in research, partly due to mistrust of medical research and healthcare professionals. Participants also expressed concerns about financial costs, noting that intersectional approaches may entail bigger budgets and longer study timelines. Participants likewise highlighted the role of the socio-political context in influencing what researchers could feasibly achieve. Interviewees from both groups proposed approaches to address barriers. These included garnering more diverse perspectives from research participants through community-based participatory research and establishing more diverse PROM development teams. They emphasised the value of clearly defining responsibility for instigating change. Participants finally outlined key arguments to help encourage stakeholders to support more intersectional approaches. Conclusions: Findings from this exploratory study suggest that despite considerable barriers, some PROM developers view intersectionality as a valuable framework for addressing existing PROM shortcomings. We provide tentative recommendations for encouraging PROM developers to use intersectionality to inform PROM development and measure health outcomes that are more meaningful to patients.