How useful is the concept of social inclusion when applied to rural older people in the UK and the US?

This paper explores the now widespread use of the concept 'social exclusion' in the UK and examines why discourses of social exclusion have not been used in the US. The relationship between social exclusion and poverty is critically applied to rural older people, a group only recently appearing in debates about social exclusion in the UK. Despite the extensive debates about social exclusion in the UK, we show that state provided income programmes are crucial to reducing poverty among older people and that data to indicate progress on addressing any of the more relational aspects of social exclusion are largely insufficient

The Impact on Older People’s Wellbeing of Leaving Heritage Volunteering and the Challenges of Managing this Process

The benefits of volunteering for older volunteers and for the organisations who host them is well-documented. The impact of being obliged to leave volunteering due to age-related conditions, and any challenges that this creates for volunteer managers, are under-researched. This study explored how volunteers and volunteer managers experienced this point in the volunteering lifecycle and whether the topic warranted further research. Semi-structured interviews were carried out with fourteen older people, who were (or had been) volunteers at one of three cultural heritage organisations in the north-east of England alongside seven volunteer managers from those organisations. These represented the diversity of heritage organisations in the region. Volunteers discussed leaving volunteering in terms of loss but also indicated that forms of personal appraisal and agency were possible, ameliorating the impact of leaving. Volunteer managers discussed how organisational frameworks and the relationships they formed with volunteers shaped their practices. These relationships created a sense of organisational reciprocity which led some managers to exceed the rules in order to sustain people in their volunteering. The results suggest that supporting personal agency could ameliorate the impact of leaving volunteering but that organisations would benefit from articulating the extent and the limits of that support

Navigating later life transitions: An evaluation of emotional and psychological interventions

Transitions in later life, for instance retiring from paid work, changing career, ending or starting a relationship, can have a major impact on people’s lives and their wellbeing. Recognising a gap in preventative support for transitions such as these, the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation (CGF; UK Branch) has funded a number of projects that provide group-based psychological and emotional support as part of its Transitions in Later Life (TiLL) programme. CGF and the Centre for Ageing Better partnered on the evaluation of two of these courses — Working Longer and Living Life to the Full, a two-day course run by Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (CWP) and Changing Gears, a three-day course run by Age & Opportunity in Dublin, Ireland. The aim of the evaluation was to find out what impact the courses had on individual attributes that would help people be better prepared for later life transitions; what changes people make as a result of the courses; and what practice, resources or processes in the organisations are important in ensuring their implementation and efficacy

Participants' perspective on maintaining behaviour change: a qualitative study within the European Diabetes Prevention Study.

BACKGROUND: The European Diabetes Prevention Study (EDIPS) is an RCT of diet and exercise interventions in people with impaired glucose tolerance. We undertook a qualitative study, nested within the EDIPS in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK, aiming to understand the experience of participants who maintained behaviour change, in order to inform future interventions. METHODS: Participants were purposively sampled, according to success criteria for diet and physical activity change maintenance, and invited to attend individual semi-structured interviews. Fifteen participants completed an interview and reflected on their experience over three to five years. We used the Framework method to analyse the transcribed data. RESULTS: Main themes were identified as factors that help (props) and those that hinder (burdens) behaviour change maintenance at different organisational levels: individual (both physical and psychological), social and environmental. Pre-existing physical conditions (such as arthritis) and social demands (such as caring for an ageing relative) hindered, whereas the benefits of becoming fitter and of having social and professional support helped, participants in maintaining behaviour change. Participants' long term experiences highlighted the salience of the continuous change in their physical, social and environmental conditions over time. CONCLUSION: The construct of props and burdens facilitates a holistic view of participants' behaviour. Efforts to encourage behaviour change maintenance should take account of context and the way this changes over time, and should include strategies to address these issues. The experience of participants who maintain behaviour change highlights the challenges for the wider implementation of diabetes prevention strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: (ISRCTN 15670600).The European Diabetes Prevention Study in Newcastle was funded by the Wellcome Trust

The acceptability and impact of a randomised controlled trial of welfare rights advice accessed via primary health care: qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Qualitative research is increasingly used alongside randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to study a range of factors including participants' experiences of a trial. The need for a sound evidence base within public health will increase the need for RCTs of non-clinical interventions. Welfare rights advice has been proposed as an intervention with potential to reduce health inequalities. This qualitative study, nested within an RCT of the impact of welfare rights advice, examined the acceptability of the intervention, the acceptability of the research process and the perceived impact of the intervention. METHODS: 25 men and women aged 60 years or over were recruited from four general practices in Newcastle upon Tyne (UK), a sub-sample of those who consented to be contacted (n = 96) during the RCT baseline interview. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken and analysed using the Framework Method. RESULTS: Participants viewed the trial positively although, despite agreeing that the information leaflet was clear, some had agreed to participate without being fully aware of what was involved. Some participants were unaware of the implications of randomisation. Most thought it fair, but a few concerns were raised about the control condition. The intervention was acceptable and made participants feel confident about applying for benefit entitlements. 14 out of 25 participants received some financial award; median weekly income gain was £57 (€84, $101). The perceived impact of additional finances was considerable and included: increased affordability of necessities and occasional expenses; increased capacity to deal with emergencies; and a reduction in stress related to financial worries. Overall, perceived independence and ability to participate in society increased. Most participants perceived benefits to their mental well-being, but no-one reported an improvement in physical health. The RCT showed little or no effect on a wide range of outcome measures. CONCLUSION: Participation in the trial and the intervention was acceptable to participants. Welfare rights advice targeted at people aged 60 years or over and accessed via primary care had a positive impact on quality of life and resulted in increased social participation. The divergence of qualitative and quantitative findings suggests that both methods make important contributions to the evaluation of complex social interventions

Understanding welfare conditionality in the context of a generational habitus: A qualitative study of older citizens in England.

In many welfare states, 'austerity' policies have ignited debates about the fairness and cost-effectiveness of universal welfare benefits, with benefits received by older citizens a particular topic of concern. Empirical studies suggest that conditionality generates problems of access and uptake but, to date, there has been little research on how different conditions of entitlement are understood by older citizens. This study drew on interviews with 29 older citizens from three areas of England to explore how eligibility for and uptake of different kinds of welfare benefits were understood. In interviews, current entitlement was understood in relation to a generational habitus, in which 'our generation' was framed as sharing cohort experiences, and moral orientations to self-reliance, hard work and struggle. Entitlement to some welfare benefits was taken for granted as a reward owed by the state to its citizens for hard-earned lives. State transfers such as pensions, free travel and fuel subsidies were congruent with a nationalised generational habitus, and fostered recognition, self-worth and the sense of a generation as a collective. In contrast, transfers contingent on economic or need-based conditionality were more explicitly framed as 'benefits', and negatively associated with vulnerability and moral contestation. Uptake was therefore often incompatible with their generational habitus. Calls for introducing further conditionality to benefits for older adults are often based on claims that this will increase fairness and equality. Our analysis suggests, however, that introducing conditionality has the potential to promote inequality and foster differentiation and division, within the older population and between generations.This work was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)’s School for Public Health Research (SPHR).This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Elsevier via http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2015.06.00

A model of how targeted and universal welfare entitlements impact on material, psycho-social and structural determinants of health in older adults.

A growing body of research attests to the impact of welfare regimes on health and health equity. However, the mechanisms that link different kinds of welfare entitlement to health outcomes are less well understood. This study analysed the accounts of 29 older adults in England to delineate how the form of entitlement to welfare and other resources (specifically, whether this was understood as a universal entitlement or as targeted to those in need) impacts on the determinants of health. Mechanisms directly affecting access to material resources (through deterring uptake of benefits) have been well documented, but those that operate through psychosocial and more structural pathways less so, in part because they are more challenging to identify. Entitlement that was understood collectively, or as arising from financial or other contributions to a social body, had positive impacts on wellbeing beyond material gains, including facilitating access to important health determinants: social contact, recognition and integration. Entitlement understood as targeted in terms of individualised concepts of need or vulnerability deterred access to material resources, but also fostered debate about legitimacy, thus contributing to negative impacts on individual wellbeing and the public health through the erosion of social integration. This has important implications for both policy and evaluation. Calls to target welfare benefits at those in most need emphasise direct material pathways to health impact. We suggest a model for considering policy change and evaluation which also takes into account how psychosocial and structural pathways are affected by the nature of entitlement

A model of how targeted and universal welfare entitlements impact on material, psycho-social and structural determinants of health in older adults.

A growing body of research attests to the impact of welfare regimes on health and health equity. However, the mechanisms that link different kinds of welfare entitlement to health outcomes are less well understood. This study analysed the accounts of 29 older adults in England to delineate how the form of entitlement to welfare and other resources (specifically, whether this was understood as a universal entitlement or as targeted to those in need) impacts on the determinants of health. Mechanisms directly affecting access to material resources (through deterring uptake of benefits) have been well documented, but those that operate through psychosocial and more structural pathways less so, in part because they are more challenging to identify. Entitlement that was understood collectively, or as arising from financial or other contributions to a social body, had positive impacts on wellbeing beyond material gains, including facilitating access to important health determinants: social contact, recognition and integration. Entitlement understood as targeted in terms of individualised concepts of need or vulnerability deterred access to material resources, but also fostered debate about legitimacy, thus contributing to negative impacts on individual wellbeing and the public health through the erosion of social integration. This has important implications for both policy and evaluation. Calls to target welfare benefits at those in most need emphasise direct material pathways to health impact. We suggest a model for considering policy change and evaluation which also takes into account how psychosocial and structural pathways are affected by the nature of entitlement

Social prescribing and classed inequality: A journey of upward health mobility?

Social prescribing, characterised by a link worker connecting patients with local groups and services, is currently being widely implemented in the UK. Taking clients' experiences of a social prescribing intervention in the North of England between November 2019 and July 2020 as its focus, this paper employs ethnographic methods to explore the complex social contexts in which social prescribing is delivered. Building on Bourdieusian approaches to class, we concentrate on four case studies to offer a theoretically-grounded analysis which attends to the relationship between everyday contexts and the classed processes by which health capital may be accrued. By following clients' experiences and trajectories through shifting positions across time - often entailing moments of tension and disjuncture - we explore how processes of classed inequality relate to engagement in the social prescribing intervention. Our results show how structural contexts, and relatedly the possession of capital, shape clients' priorities to invest in the cultural health capital offered by the intervention. Importantly, while inequalities shaped participants’ capacity to engage with the intervention, all participants recognised the value of the health capital on offer. We conclude by arguing that inequalities cannot be tackled through focusing on the individual in the delivery of personalised care and therefore offer a counter narrative to socio-political assumptions that social prescribing reduces health inequalities. Crucially, we argue that such assumptions wrongly presuppose that people are homogenously disposed to engaging in their future health

Using quantitative and qualitative data in health services research - what happens when mixed method findings conflict? [ISRCTN61522618].

BACKGROUND: In this methodological paper we document the interpretation of a mixed methods study and outline an approach to dealing with apparent discrepancies between qualitative and quantitative research data in a pilot study evaluating whether welfare rights advice has an impact on health and social outcomes among a population aged 60 and over. METHODS: Quantitative and qualitative data were collected contemporaneously. Quantitative data were collected from 126 men and women aged over 60 within a randomised controlled trial. Participants received a full welfare benefits assessment which successfully identified additional financial and non-financial resources for 60% of them. A range of demographic, health and social outcome measures were assessed at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 month follow up. Qualitative data were collected from a sub-sample of 25 participants purposively selected to take part in individual interviews to examine the perceived impact of welfare rights advice. RESULTS: Separate analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data revealed discrepant findings. The quantitative data showed little evidence of significant differences of a size that would be of practical or clinical interest, suggesting that the intervention had no impact on these outcome measures. The qualitative data suggested wide-ranging impacts, indicating that the intervention had a positive effect. Six ways of further exploring these data were considered: (i) treating the methods as fundamentally different; (ii) exploring the methodological rigour of each component; (iii) exploring dataset comparability; (iv) collecting further data and making further comparisons; (v) exploring the process of the intervention; and (vi) exploring whether the outcomes of the two components match. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrates how using mixed methods can lead to different and sometimes conflicting accounts and, using this six step approach, how such discrepancies can be harnessed to interrogate each dataset more fully. Not only does this enhance the robustness of the study, it may lead to different conclusions from those that would have been drawn through relying on one method alone and demonstrates the value of collecting both types of data within a single study. More widespread use of mixed methods in trials of complex interventions is likely to enhance the overall quality of the evidence base