Pleasure is an under-researched and under theorized concept within health and health-related areas, particularly in relation to physical activity in older age. This gap is addressed here. The paper forms part of a larger qualitative project conducted between March 2011 and July 2013 within which fifty-one physically active older adults (age sixty to ninety-two years) were interviewed about their experiences of physical activity. Twenty-seven of these participants were also involved in a photo elicitation exercise whereby they responded to photographic images of themselves doing their activity. The paper reports in-depth on one of the themes - pleasure - that was initially identified through a rigorous categorical-content analysis of this data. An original typology of pleasure for physical activity in older age is developed, which details four significant ideal types of pleasure: sensual pleasure; documented pleasure; the pleasure of habitual action; and the pleasure of immersion. The implications of this typology for debates around embodiment, affect, and narratives of ageing are discussed in relation to health promotion and future research in this underserved area.

Background Robopets are small animal‐like robots which have the appearance and behavioural characteristics of pets. Objective To bring together the evidence of the experiences of staff, residents and family members of interacting with robopets and the effects of robopets on the health and well‐being of older people living in care homes. Design Systematic review of qualitative and quantitative research. Data sources We searched 13 electronic databases from inception to July 2018 and undertook forward and backward citation chasing. Methods Eligible studies reported the views and experiences of robopets from residents, family members and staff (qualitative studies using recognised methods of qualitative data collection and analysis) and the effects of robopets on the health and well‐being of care home residents (randomised controlled trials, randomised crossover trials and cluster randomised trials). Study selection was undertaken independently by two reviewers. We used the Wallace criteria and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool to assess the quality of the evidence. We developed a logic model with stakeholders and used this as a framework to guide data extraction and synthesis. Where appropriate, we used meta‐analysis to combine effect estimates from quantitative studies. Results Nineteen studies (10 qualitative, 2 mixed methods and 7 randomised trials) met the inclusion criteria. Interactions with robopets were described as having a positive impact on aspects of well‐being including loneliness, depression and quality of life by residents and staff, although there was no corresponding statistically significant evidence from meta‐analysis for these outcomes. Meta‐analysis showed evidence of a reduction in agitation with the robopet “Paro” compared to control (−0.32 [95% CI −0.61 to −0.04, p = 0.03]). Not everyone had a positive experience of robopets. Conclusions Engagement with robopets appears to have beneficial effects on the health and well‐being of older adults living in care homes, but not all chose to engage. Whether the benefits can be sustained are yet to be investigated. Implications for practice Robopets have the potential to benefit people living in care homes, through increasing engagement and interaction. With the robopet acting as a catalyst, this engagement and interaction may afford comfort and help reduce agitation and loneliness.

BackgroundDespite the increased scholarly interest in the senses and sensory experiences, the topic of older people’s sensory engagement with nature is currently under researched. This paper reviews and synthesises qualitative research evidence about how older people, including those living with dementia, describe their sensory engagement with the natural world.MethodsTen databases were searched from 1990 to September 2014: MEDLINE (Ovid), MEDLINE-in-Process (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), GreenFILE (EBSCO), ProQuest Sociology, ASSIA (ProQuest), International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (ProQuest); HMIC (Ovid); Social Policy and Practice (Ovid). Forward and backward citation chasing of included articles was conducted; 20 organizations were contacted to identify unpublished reports. Screening was undertaken independently by two reviewers.ResultsTwenty seven studies were included. Thematic analysis revealed that descriptions of sensory experiences are encompassed within six themes: descriptions from ‘the window’; sensory descriptions that emphasise vision; descriptions of ‘being in nature’; descriptions of ‘doing in nature’; barriers to sensory engagement; and meanings of being and doing in nature.ConclusionsOlder people derive considerable pleasure and enjoyment from viewing nature, being and doing in nature which, in turn has a positive impact on their wellbeing and quality of life. Future research could usefully explore how sensory engagement with nature could be used to stimulate reminiscences of places and people, and evoke past sensory experiences to enrich everyday life and maintain a sense of self.The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42015020736).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12877-016-0288-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ObjectiveThe academic and scientific community has reacted at pace to gather evidence to help and inform about COVID-19. Concerns have been raised about the quality of this evidence. The aim of this review was to map the nature, scope and quality of evidence syntheses on COVID-19 and to explore the relationship between review quality and the extent of researcher, policy and media interest.Design and settingA meta-research: systematic review of reviews.Information sourcesPubMed, Epistemonikos COVID-19 evidence, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection and the WHO COVID-19 database, searched between 10 June 2020 and 15 June 2020.Eligibility criteriaAny peer-reviewed article reported as a systematic review, rapid review, overview, meta-analysis or qualitative evidence synthesis in the title or abstract addressing a research question relating to COVID-19. Articles described as meta-analyses but not undertaken as part of a systematic or rapid review were excluded.Study selection and data extractionAbstract and full text screening were undertaken by two independent reviewers. Descriptive information on review type, purpose, population, size, citation and attention metrics were extracted along with whether the review met the definition of a systematic review according to six key methodological criteria. For those meeting all criteria, additional data on methods and publication metrics were extracted.Risk of biasFor articles meeting all six criteria required to meet the definition of a systematic review, AMSTAR-2 ((A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews, version 2.0) was used to assess the quality of the reported methods.Results2334 articles were screened, resulting in 280 reviews being included: 232 systematic reviews, 46 rapid reviews and 2 overviews. Less than half reported undertaking critical appraisal and a third had no reproducible search strategy. There was considerable overlap in topics, with discordant findings. Eighty-eight of the 280 reviews met all six systematic review criteria. Of these, just 3 were rated as of moderate or high quality on AMSTAR-2, with the majority having critical flaws: only a third reported registering a protocol, and less than one in five searched named COVID-19 databases. Review conduct and publication were rapid, with 52 of the 88 systematic reviews reported as being conducted within 3 weeks, and a half published within 3 weeks of submission. Researcher and media interest, as measured by altmetrics and citations, was high, and was not correlated with quality.DiscussionThis meta-research of early published COVID-19 evidence syntheses found low-quality reviews being published at pace, often with short publication turnarounds. Despite being of low quality and many lacking robust methods, the reviews received substantial attention across both academic and public platforms, and the attention was not related to the quality of review methods.InterpretationFlaws in systematic review methods limit the validity of a review and the generalisability of its findings. Yet, by being reported as ‘systematic reviews’, many readers may well regard them as high-quality evidence, irrespective of the actual methods undertaken. The challenge especially in times such as this pandemic is to provide indications of trustworthiness in evidence that is available in ‘real time’.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020188822.