Section | Checklist Item | Case 1 |
---|---|---|
Planning | ||
 How was the aim of the study framed? | 1) Use each element of the PRODUCES framework (PRoblem, Objective, Design, (end-) Users, Co-creators, Evaluation and Scalability) | Utilising PAAR (Design) to develop (Objective) and test (Evaluation), with academic researchers and older adults (Co-creators), a generalisable (Scalability) intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour (PRoblem) in community-dwelling older adults (end-Users). |
 Explain the sampling procedure | 2) Explain the criteria used for sampling | Convenience sampling and maximum variation sampling. End-users were 65+ years of age, community-dwelling, able to ambulate independently, able to give informed consent, able to attend a minimum of 5 meetings. |
3) In what settings did sampling occur? | End-user co-creators were recruited from university older adult database | |
4) How many individuals engaged as co-creators (academic / non-academic stakeholders)? | Four university researchers and 11 community-dwelling older adults | |
5) Describe the co-creators (demographics / groups / other characteristics of interest). | Of the end-user co-creators, 11 participants (5 men), average age = 74 years. Average medications = 5. | |
Conducting | ||
 How was ownership manifested? | 6) Explain the methods used to manifest ownership (for example, branding the group, identifying the rights and responsibilities of the group) | Co-creators branded as GrandStand Research Group. Co-creators provided with t-shirts, lab books, bags and pens with GrandStand logo. All co-creators told of their right of equal status within the group and their responsibility to contribute their ideas. |
 Procedure Components: | 7) What level of participation was there from the co-creators? | Academic researchers and end-users strove to have equal participation. All co-creators asked for their input on each discussion point. |
8) How was the overall aim presented? | Overall aim highlighted at the beginning of the process and beginning of each workshop. | |
9) How was the purpose of each meeting presented? | Purpose of each meeting identified at the beginning of the meeting. | |
10) What were the rules and responsibilities of participation agreed upon? | Individuals told of their right of equal status within the group and to contribute their ideas. | |
 Procedure Methods: | 11) In which areas did the co-creators require up-skilling? | End-users were up-skilled regarding behaviour change theory and research methods. Academic researchers were upskilled regarding older adults’ reasons and preferences for interrupting SB. |
12) What previous evidence was reviewed, and how? | Presentations of the context of older adults’ SB [93], behavioural assets which can be used to interrupt sedentary periods [94] and behaviour change theories. | |
13) If a prototype was developed, describe the prototype and the prototyping process | Full intervention prototype created from several key components which were individually prototyped, tested by co-creators and then refined. | |
14) Describe the frequency and duration of meetings | Meetings occurred every 10–14 days and lasted approximately 2 h. | |
15) Give examples of interactive techniques or methods used | Scenarios (eg. where it may be easy / difficult to break sedentary behaviour); Brainstorming (eg. how to best categorise older adults’ assets) | |
16) Give examples of fieldwork techniques or methods used | Testing created prototypes with end-users not involved with the process. | |
17) Give examples of how iteration occurred during the process | Prototypes were initially developed, tested externally and after discussions, refined and then tested again. | |
Evaluation | ||
 Process | 18) Explain how co-creator satisfaction and contribution evaluated (for example reporting on attendance rates, questionnaires, interviews). | Retention rates measured (100% retention, 0% dropout). |
How are results reported back to stakeholders and the public? | Written reports were developed explaining the results of the process and findings were disseminated at national conferences. | |
 Outcome | 19) Explain how the validity of the outcome and the process were evaluated (for example, face validation, member checking). | Face validation and member checking occurred throughout, including each developed prototype component and a summary of the information gathered from the previous meeting. |
20) Explain plans for formal testing of the effectiveness/scalability of the co-created outcome | Plan to embed the intervention into a multi-centre RCT vs. a top-down, theory-driven intervention and standard care (control group) to assess the effectiveness of the intervention. | |
21) Explain outcome of evaluation (if tested) | If step 20 is deployed, outcomes which will be measured will include: changes in sedentary time, changes in sedentary time fragmentation, participants’ experience of using the intervention and effect on function (noted as important by the end-user co-creators. |