Background: Society has to cope with a large burden of health issues. There is need to find solutions to prevent diseases and help individuals live healthier lifestyles. Individual needs and circumstances vary greatly and one size fit all solutions do not tend to work well. More tailored solutions centred on individuals’ needs and circumstances can be developed in collaboration with these individuals. This process, known as co-creation, has shown promise but it requires guiding principles to improve its effectiveness. The aim of this study was to identify a key set of principles and recommendations for co-creating public health interventions. Methods: These principles were collaboratively developed through analysing a set of case studies targeting different health behaviours (such as reducing sitting and improving strength and balance) in different groups of people (such as adolescent schoolgirls and older adults living in the community). Results: The key principles of co-creation are presented in four stages: Planning (what is the purpose of the co-creation; and who should be involved?); Conducting (what activities can be used during co-creation; and how to ensure buy-in and commitment?); Evaluating (how do we know the process and the outcome are valid and effective?) and Reporting (how to report the findings?). Three models are proposed to show how co-created solutions can be scaled up to a population level. Conclusions: These recommendations aim to help the co-creation of public health interventions by providing a framework and governance to guide the process. Background: Due to the chronic disease burden on society, there is a need for preventive public health interventions to stimulate society towards a healthier lifestyle. To deal with the complex variability between individual lifestyles and settings, collaborating with end-users to develop interventions tailored to their unique circumstances has been suggested as a potential way to improve effectiveness and adherence. Co-creation of public health interventions using participatory methodologies has shown promise but lacks a framework to make this process systematic. The aim of this paper was to identify and set key principles and recommendations for systematically applying participatory methodologies to co-create and evaluate public health interventions. Methods: These principles and recommendations were derived using an iterative reflection process, combining key learning from published literature in addition to critical reflection on three case studies conducted by research groups in three European institutions, all of whom have expertise in co-creating public health interventions using different participatory methodologies. Results: Key principles and recommendations for using participatory methodologies in public health intervention co-creation are presented for the stages of: Planning (framing the aim of the study and identifying the appropriate sampling strategy); Conducting (defining the procedure, in addition to manifesting ownership); Evaluating (the process and the effectiveness) and Reporting (providing guidelines to report the findings). Three scaling models are proposed to demonstrate how to scale locally developed interventions to a population level. Conclusions: These recommendations aim to facilitate public health intervention co-creation and evaluation utilising participatory methodologies by ensuring the process is systematic and reproducible.

Older adults are the most sedentary segment of the population. Little information is available about the context of sedentary behaviour to inform guidelines and intervention. There is a dearth of information about when, where to intervene and which specific behaviours intervention should target. The aim of this exploratory study was to obtain objective information about what older adults do when sedentary, where and when they are sedentary and in what social context. The study was a cross-sectional data collection. Older adults (Mean age = 73.25, SD ± 5.48, median = 72, IQR = 11) volunteers wore activPAL monitors and a Vicon Revue timelapse camera between 1 and 7 days. Periods of sedentary behaviour were identified using the activPAL and the context extracted from the pictures taken during these periods. Analysis of context was conducted using the Sedentary Behaviour International Taxonomy classification system. In total, 52 days from 36 participants were available for analysis. Participants spent 70.1 % of sedentary time at home, 56.9 % of sedentary time on their own and 46.8 % occurred in the afternoon. Seated social activities were infrequent (6.9 % of sedentary bouts) but prolonged (18 % of sedentary time). Participants appeared to frequently have vacant sitting time (41 % of non-screen sedentary time) and screen sitting was prevalent (36 % of total sedentary time). This study provides valuable information to inform future interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour. Interventions should consider targeting the home environment and focus on the afternoon sitting time, though this needs confirmation in a larger study. Tackling social isolation may also be a target to reduce sedentary time.

The increasing health care costs associated with an ageing population and chronic disease burden are largely attributable to modifiable lifestyle factors that are complex and vary between individuals and settings. Traditional approaches to promoting healthy lifestyles have so far had limited success. Recently, co-creating public health interventions with end-users has been advocated to provide more effective and sustainable solutions. The aim of this study was to document and evaluate the co-creation of a public health intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour in older adults. Community-dwelling older adults (N = 11, mean age = 74 years) and academic researchers attended 10 interactive co-creation workshops together. Workshops took place on university campus and the co-creators completed fieldwork tasks outside the workshops. Workshops were informed by the Participatory and Appreciative Action and Reflection methodology. Data were collected using field notes, video recording and worksheet tasks. Analysis was conducted using a qualitative content analysis approach. The co-creators developed a tailored intervention delivered through a mode congruent with older adults’ lives. Key elements of the intervention included (1) education on sedentary behaviour, (2) resources to interrupt sedentary behaviour, (3) self-monitoring, (4) action planning and (5) evaluating the benefits of interrupting sedentary behaviour. Co-creation is a feasible approach to develop public health interventions; however, it is limited by the lack of a systematic framework to guide the process. Future work should aim to develop principles and recommendations to ensure co-creation can be conducted in a more scientific and reproducible way. The effectiveness and scalability of the intervention should be assessed.

Objective: There is a growing public health focus on the promotion of successful and active ageing. Interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour (SB) in older adults are feasible and are improved by tailoring to individuals’ context and circumstances. SB is ubiquitous; therefore part of the tailoring process is to ensure individuals’ daily sedentary routine can be modified. The aim of this study was to understand the views of older adults and identify important considerations when creating a solution to modify daily sedentary patterns. Method: This was a qualitative research study. Fifteen older adult volunteers (mean age = 78 years) participated in 1 of 4 focus groups to identify solutions to modify daily sedentary routine. Two researchers conducted the focus groups whilst a third took detailed fieldnotes on a flipchart to member check the findings. Data were recorded and analysed thematically. Results: Participants wanted a solution with a range of options which could be tailored to individual needs and circumstances. The strategy suggested was to use the activities of daily routine and reasons why individuals already naturally interrupting their SB, collectively framed as assets. These assets were categorised into 5 sub-themes: physical assets (eg. standing up to reduce stiffness); psychological assets (eg. standing up to reduce feelings of guilt); interpersonal assets (eg. standing up to answer the phone); knowledge assets (eg. standing up due to knowing the benefits of breaking SB) and activities of daily living assets (eg. standing up to get a drink). Conclusion: This study provides important considerations from older adults’ perspectives to modify their daily sedentary patterns. The assets identified by participants could be used to co-create a tailored intervention with older adults to reduce SB, which may increase effectiveness and adherence.

There is a need to test new models of integrated health and social care, particularly due to increasing financial and epidemiological pressures on services. One critical component of testing new models is the acceptability to patients. Here, the aim was to understand the acceptability of a new model of care to patients by understanding their experience of being supported by a self-managing, community-based, integrated, health and social care team. The INCA service consisted of three support workers and three nurses in two teams. These teams were self-managing and had autonomy over service operations and care delivery. Eight interviews and satisfaction questionnaires were conducted with patients. Interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically. Patients found the service highly acceptable (mean overall satisfaction of 98%), self-reporting a variety of benefits to their wellbeing. Central to this acceptability was the autonomy of staff to adjust care frequency and duration to patients’ needs, in addition to describing an active engagement and partnership within their support plans. Future work should aim to ascertain the experiences of staff working in this model and whether receiving support in this way improves clinical outcomes.