Within the sociology of sport there is a small but rich strand of literature concerned with understanding the sensual experiences of sport and physical activity. Whilst this work has advanced our understanding of the sensual sporting body, less is known about the mature sporting body and the sensual experiences of older adults. Gaining an insight into the sensual experiences of others is no easy task and this article critically reflects on the methods used to 'grasp at' (Hockey and Allen-Collinson, 2007) older adults' embodied experiences of physical activity. An account of the process and outcomes of the method employed is presented along with visual and textual data to illustrate the problems and possibilities of exploring the sensual experiences of the ageing body within the context of physical activity.
AbstractIntroductionClarity on the characteristics of methods used to produce evidence and gap maps (EGMs) will highlight areas where method development is needed to ensure these increasingly produced tools are made following best practice to assure their quality and utility. This paper aims to describe the range, nature and variability of key methodological characteristics of studies publishing EGMs.MethodsWe followed a protocol, written a‐prior and informed by PRISMA and MECCIR guidelines for undertaking systematic reviews. We searched nine data bases, from 2010, for studies across any discipline that included details of their methods used to produce an EGM. Search results were screened by two reviewers independently and the subsequent data was extracted and managed according to predefined criteria. We mapped these together with the year of publication and the area of research as the two primary dimensions. We followed established methods for mapping the evidence, including the process of developing the map framework and the filters for our interactive map. We sought input and involvement from stakeholders during this process.ResultsWe found 145 studies from nine distinct research areas, with health research accounting for 67%. There were 11 map designs found, of these bubble plots were the most common design, before 2019, since then it has been a matrix map design. Stakeholders were involved in 47.7% of studies, 48.35% of studies stated finding gaps was an aim of their work, 42% reported publishing or registering a protocol and only 9.39% of studies mentioned a plan to update their evidence maps/EGMs.Discussion/ConclusionKey areas of methodological development relate to: the involvement of stakeholders, the conceptualization of gaps and the practices for updating maps. The issues of ambiguity in terminology, the flexibility of visualizations of the data and the lack of reporting detail were other aspects that needs further consideration in studies producing an EGM.
Abstract This exploratory qualitative study aimed to evidence how community-based gardening groups can be used to support the psychological, physical and social health of those living with dementia. The views of people living with dementia in the community, care partners and group leaders were sought to better understand the benefits gained from gardening groups, as well as the features of gardening groups that are cited as enabling positive outcomes. Going beyond the existing single-group studies in this area, this research aimed to identify common themes across multiple gardening groups. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with six group leaders, three people living with dementia and ten care partners from seven gardening groups, either in person or remotely. Thematic analysis of the interview transcripts highlighted broad enablers – 'the garden setting', 'features of activities' and 'organisational components' – that were cited as facilitating a range of positive wellbeing outcomes, creating an environment that provides 'physical and cognitive benefits', 'affirmation of identity', 'social connection' and 'benefits for care partners and others'. The wide-ranging benefits and enablers cited by participants within this research support the use of gardening groups as community-based interventions to reinforce positive psychological, physical and social outcomes for people with dementia. Themes also provide a clear framework for the design, implementation and evaluation of future gardening groups.
AbstractBackgroundHealth inequities are systematic, avoidable, and unfair differences in health between populations or population subgroups. There is increased recognition of the need for systematic reviews (SRs) to address health inequities, including drawing out findings relevant to low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs). The aim of this study was to determine the extent to which SRs on risk factors for hearing loss reported findings associated with health inequities, and the extent to which this data was captured in the primary studies included within these SRs.MethodsWe identified SRs on risk factors for hearing loss from a report on this topic which included a systematic search for relevant SRs. SRs thus identified were inspected for data related to health inequity with reference to PROGRESS‐Plus. We compared how data were reported in SRs versus within primary studies included in the SRs, and the extent to which primary studies from LMICs were represented.ResultsWe included 17 SRs which reported findings on a variety of physiological, behavioral, demographic, and environmental risk factors for hearing loss. There were 296 unique primary studies included in the SRs, of which 251 (81.49%) were successfully retrieved. Data relating to health inequities was reported relatively infrequently in the SRs and mainly focused on gender and age. Data related to health inequities was more frequently reported in primary studies. However, several PROGRESS‐Plus criteria were only reported in a minority of primary studies. Approximately one‐third of primary studies were from LMICs.ConclusionsThere is scope to improve the reporting of data relating to health inequities in primary studies on risk factors for hearing loss. However, SR authors could do more to report health inequities than is currently undertaken, including drawing out findings relevant to LMICs where data are available.
