ABSTRACT Background Co‐design is increasingly used to involve older adults in the development of digital tools, yet less attention has been given to how to engage them effectively in these processes. Older adults represent a highly diverse population, but co‐design practices often overlook this heterogeneity and rely on limited representation. Similarly, co‐design approaches vary widely in structure and degree of user involvement. While evaluations often focus on outcomes such as usability and technical performance, fewer studies explore the value of participation itself. Aim This study evaluates the process of a 5‐day online design sprint where participants, including older adults, healthcare and technology professionals, researchers, facilitators and business representatives, collaborated to develop housing‐related digital support tools. Methods A hybrid thematic analysis process links process documentation and participant reflections with value‐based frameworks to examine how different elements of the process created or inhibited value for participants. Results The findings highlight how the structure of the design sprint, together with specific facilitation practices, fostered respectful dialogue, trust, autonomy and a sense of ownership among participants. The evaluation describes how the process satisfied participants' collectively prioritised values, and their individual needs. Conclusions The study highlights that co‐design is not a neutral method, but a practice with social, ethical and emotional consequences. Effective facilitation is essential to support agency, ensure psychological safety and promote authentic collaboration. Recognising the heterogeneity of older adults and aligning facilitation strategies with participants' values and needs can enhance both the relevance of digital innovations and the meaningfulness of the co‐design experience itself. Patient and Public Contribution The project was supported by a reference group that was actively involved throughout. The group included, for instance, representatives from the municipality, regional authorities and a pensioners' organisation.
Nordin et al. (2026) studied this question.