Effectiveness of Peer-Led Wellbeing Interventions in Retirement Living: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Retirement living (RL) communities may be an ideal setting in which to utilize peer-leaders to implement or support health and wellbeing interventions. To date, this literature has not been systematically summarized. The purpose of this study was to fill this gap with a particular focus on describing the extent to which interventions addressed each level of the social ecological model of behavior change. This review utilized established frameworks for assessing methodological quality of studies, including the CONSORT guidelines and RoB2 bias assessment for cluster randomized controlled trials. A total of 153 records were identified from database searches, and seven studies met inclusion criteria. Overall, there is emerging evidence that peer-led health and wellbeing programs in RL communities can positively impact both health behavior, such as increased physical activity or nutrition, and health status, such as lower blood pressure. The study quality was modest to very good, but only one study was deemed not to have a high risk of bias. Peers are generally cost-effective, more accessible, and relatable leaders for health interventions that can still produce impactful changes. Future studies are needed to better understand how to sustain promising interventions.

Keywords: health promotion; healthy ageing; intervention; longevity; peer-led; retirement living; well-being.

Figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram.

Figure 2

RoB2 (Risk of Bias 2 ) assessment of bias for cluster RCTs (randomized controlled trials). Retirement Village Physical Activity and Nutrition for Seniors (RVPANS); Multilevel Intervention for Physical Activity in Retirement Communities (MIPARC); Residents in Action Trial (RiAT); Function Focused Care—Assisted Living (FFC-AL). Green = Low Risk of bias; Yellow = Unclear Risk of bias; Red = High Risk of bias.