How Do Decision Makers and Service Providers Experience Participatory Approaches to Developing and Implementing Physical Activity Interventions with Older Adults? A Thematic Analysis

Amy Davies, David P. French, Angela Devereux-Fitzgerald, Elisabeth Boulton, Chris Todd, Chris Phillipson, Laura J. McGowan and Rachael Powell
Additional contact information
Amy Davies: Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
David P. French: Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
Angela Devereux-Fitzgerald: Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
Elisabeth Boulton: Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
Chris Todd: Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
Chris Phillipson: School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
Laura J. McGowan: Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK
Rachael Powell: Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK

IJERPH, 2021, vol. 18, issue 4, 1-12

Abstract: Background: Physical activity has numerous health and well-being benefits for older adults, but many older adults are inactive. Interventions designed to increase physical activity in older adults have typically only produced small effects and have not achieved long-term changes. There is increasing interest in participatory approaches to promoting physical activity, such as co-production, co-design and place-based approaches, but they have typically involved researchers as participants. This study aimed to understand the experiences of decision-makers and service developers with the introduction of such participatory approaches when developing new physical activity programmes outside of a research setting. Methods: Semi-structured, qualitative interviews were conducted with 20 individuals who were involved in commissioning or developing the Greater Manchester Active Ageing Programme. This programme involved funding eight local authorities within Greater Manchester, England, to produce physical activity projects for older adults, involving participatory approaches. An inductive thematic analysis was conducted, structured using the Framework approach. Results: Interviewees identified important benefits of the participatory approaches. The increased involvement of older adults led to older adults contributing valuable ideas, becoming involved in and taking ownership of projects. Interviewees identified the need to move away from traditional emphases on increasing physical activity to improve health, towards focussing on social and fun elements. The accessibility of the session location and information was considered important. Challenges were also identified. In particular, it was recognised that the new approaches require significant time investment to do well, as trusting relationships with older adults and partner organisations need to be developed. Ensuring the sustainability of projects in the context of short-term funding cycles was a concern. Conclusions: Incorporating participatory approaches was perceived to yield important benefits. Interviewees highlighted that to ensure success, sufficient time needs to be provided to develop good working relationships with older adults and partner organisations. They also emphasised that sufficient funding to ensure adequate staffing and the sustainability of projects is required to allow benefits to be gained. Importantly, the implementation of these approaches appears feasible across a range of local authorities.

Keywords: physical activity; older adults; co-production; co-design; place-based; engagement; acceptability; sustainability; healthy ageing; intervention (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/4/2172/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/4/2172/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:4:p:2172-:d:504218

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().