Desk Research

Partners in the GUM project is coming from 7 countries in Europe (Spain, France, Bulgaria, Denmark, United Kingdom, Slovenia and the Netherlands). Together, we performed a scoping search on best practices describing intergenerational programmes involving movement, exercise or sports. One part of the search focused on identifying best practices from all countries, the other part focused on practices described in scientific literature.

To ease the desk research, the partners collaboratively came up with the search terms for the process, displayed in Table 1. If needed, search terms were translated to own languages.

For the scientific literature search we used Web of Science and Pubmed. The search was restricted to literature published from the year 2,000 onwards.

16-25 65+

16-25 * 65+ Activity / program

Adolescent Elderly Intergenerational Activity, activities

• Social

• Physical

Student Seniors Transgenerational Program(me(s))

Youngster Old(er) people Across ages Sport(s)

Young professional Retired Multigenerational Exercise

Immigrants Retirees Multiple ages Movement

Students of sport Older generation Age groups Project

Sport clubs

Senior home(s) Bridging generations Collaboration

Young adults Active in sport clubs Together Fun

Young athletes

Senior society/ societies Connection Games

Young people Elderly homes

Young generations 65+

18+ Old age

Generational learning Physical activity

Bonding Creation

Social impact Sport clubs

Volunteering Learning

Community Sharing

Different generations Intervention(s)

Tools

Co-creation

Co-design

Process

PHOTO CREDIT ISCA

5.3.

Analysis

Once the literature search was finished, the good practices and scientific papers were analysed. For this, we used a predefined template provided in Appendix 1. The predefined template was created based on the group discussions and brainstorming sessions we had with the partners at the kick off meeting of the GUM project.

Interviews

When information was not available in the documents, all partners contacted programme and activity developers/owners to retrieve more specific information. This has been the most challenging part for the partnership. In some good examples, although the objectives and activities were well defined and much detailed; the impact, outcomes, barriers and behaviour change patterns were not known or not measured by the owners of the examples. This made our research more difficult than expected. For this reason, although we have reached a total of 39 good practices, we decided to identify 12 of them for further study in the field of intergenerational activity.