This study aimed to assess the associations between childhood adverse socioeconomic conditions and intrinsic capacity in older adults using an integrative approach to ageing.

A cross-sectional study.

We used data from the Lausanne Cohort 65+, a population-based longitudinal study that has been conducted in Lausanne, Switzerland, since 2004.

Lausanne citizens aged 67–71 years old.

Intrinsic capacity was assessed in 2015 using validated self-reported measures and performance tests. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling was used in a formative approach to calculate the global score of intrinsic capacity and the scores of its domains. Adverse socioeconomic conditions in childhood were retrospectively assessed in 2014 using self-reported measures of financial strain, dietary restrictions and child labour.

The study sample included 1328 individuals. Multivariable regressions revealed that the global score of intrinsic capacity was lower in individuals who reported financial strain (B=–0.15, p=0.029) and dietary restrictions (B=–0.314, p=0.004) in childhood. They further showed an association between financial strain and lower locomotor and sensory capacities (B=–0.173, p=0.011 and B=–0.153, p=0.027, respectively), and between child labour and a lower score on cognition (B=–0.342, p

Our results emphasise the critical role of early life conditions in healthy ageing. They highlight the importance of financial support for families and access to nutrition.

Most patients receive behavioural healthcare (BH) in a primary care setting, yet much of the BH research was not developed to account for eventual implementation. Areas of research and intervention that are considered priorities to patients may be absent from our existing knowledge base. Engaging the community in the research process can facilitate translation and uptake. A key strategy for community engagement is to employ a Community Advisory Board (CAB). CABs can assist in a number of research processes, including guiding research questions to fit the priorities of the community and creating research materials that are tailored to the patient population and healthcare setting. There is variability in practices and reporting standards for CABs. The field would benefit from a summary of the state of the current literature on CAB utilisation for BH research in primary care. To fill this gap, we will conduct a scoping review to answer the question, ‘What is known about the use of CABs in behavioural health studies in primary care?’.

We will use the guidelines for scoping reviews outlined by Arksey and O’Malley: (1) identifying the research question; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) study selection; (4) charting the data and (5) collating, summarising and reporting the results. Our reporting of the results will be guided by the Arnos and colleagues Toolkit for Project-Based Community Advisory Boards, a set of practical guidelines for employing a CAB. To this end, we will report on how well CABs currently employed in BH primary care research match existing guidelines and what gaps need to be filled by future research.

This review does not require ethics board approval, as no patient data will be collected. We will disseminate findings primarily through journal publications and conference presentations.

This scoping review protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/pa3rz/?view_only=31c558eb395a4a9482ee9c5b57ca1c4c)