Meeting needs

In contrast, a number of Brightlife-funded projects encountered problems during delivery that could potentially have been avoided with more comprehensive consultation of user communities at the design stage. For example, the providers of several projects aimed at those with long-term conditions (and their carers) discovered that the parts of their services that involved meeting at regular times were inaccessible to many participants, who were likely to have limited or unpredictable availability. Had these communities been consulted at the design stage, such specific barriers to participation could have been addressed accordingly.

Consultation with these types of communities can inform more than simply logistical considerations: the complexity of the needs of some groups can also mean that participants may require specialist support. This must be taken into account when planning and budgeting for staff and volunteer recruitment – something that was acknowledged by the project delivery team for the FAB Cheshire West project (Listening Ear), after they found that many of the participants referred to their bereavement counselling service required a more intensive level of support than had been anticipated.

Empowering individuals

Consultation with representative communities during the design phase, while helpful for identifying specific group needs and barriers to engagement, should not be the only involvement that older people have in the development of the services they use. Where possible, sufficient flexibility must also be built in to adapt delivery to the wide range of tastes, preferences and needs of individual participants.

As part of the commissioning process at Brightlife, all delivery partners were required to show how they would enable older people’s voices to shape their projects and services. Many proposed co-production of activities and programmes through a participant-led ‘steering group’, while others used regular feedback sessions to facilitate this. 

For example, in the Social Activity Taster project, Community Compass held informal ‘tea breaks’ throughout the delivery period to encourage participants to offer feedback and suggestions. Not only did this help to shape the format and content of their activity programme; but by helping to identify a significant need in the local community for a food-sharing service, it also informed the development of their subsequent successful proposal for Share Club.

Another example is the mini bus tours provided as part of the Great Outdoors Malpas project (delivered by Cheshire Wildlife Trust), which arose as a response to talking to residents and staff in a local residential care home, where there was a real appetite for excursions to the countryside, but where the limited mobility of residents had prevented this in the past. In response to this need being identified, Cheshire Wildlife Trust organised a number of trips for the care home residents into different parts of West Cheshire and over the border into Wales. For many residents, this was the first opportunity to be driven out into the countryside they had had for a long time. It also enabled those who had grown up locally to revisit sights familiar from their earlier life – something that was particularly valuable for participants with dementia.

Similarly, in planning activities for the care home outreach sessions that were delivered as part of their Growing Connections project, Groundwork Cheshire Lancashire and Merseyside sought significant input from participating residents. During this process, a need was identified for a wheelchair-accessible raised bed in the communal garden of one care home, which was subsequently created and used to encourage residents to grow flowers and vegetables.

In the context of the Brightlife Social Prescribing scheme, the involvement of older people in decisions was built in: participants had control over the types of activities they were referred to. This often required tailoring existing activities to participants’ needs, or in some cases creating new opportunities. For example, one Social Prescriber had a participant with serious health problems that wanted to go swimming. When coordinating transport to the public pool did not work, she found a private pool for hire and arranged for a befriender to take him.

When designing projects and services for older people, it is important to consider that as many as three generations could be included in the term ‘over-50s’, with the needs of each individual strongly dependent on their health, past experience and current situation. For example, a fit, healthy 80-year-old might be far more able and adventurous than a recently-bereaved 60-year-old with limited mobility.

Similarly, older people are just as different to each other in terms of their interests, skills and preferences as younger people are to each other. In failing to take this diversity into account, interventions that use age-based targeting are often ineffective.

Several Brightlife project delivery partners discovered this independently, acknowledging that any social events or clubs that were based and promoted on the age of participants (rather than on an activity or a shared interest) tended to be less popular. Such targeting was also questioned by potential participants, many of whom were reluctant to join a group specifically for ‘older people’ as they did not consider themselves to be ‘old’.

Some of the most successful Brightlife projects involved participation in activities and interests such as gardening, exercise, art, wildlife or photography. These projects were more effective in building participants’ confidence and encouraging meaningful social interaction, with friendships that had initially formed over a common interest being more likely to continue outside the project environment. Activities involving the arts were found to be particularly successful.

For projects based in residential care homes, expanding recruitment to include participants from the local community can also help residents to feel more connected. Another element that was particularly successful for encouraging participation and engagement (particularly from those who live alone) was meal-sharing.

Several delivery partners experienced difficulties engaging male participants in projects involving non-specific activities. In line with existing research in this area, Brightlife found that offering structured, skill-based activities, such as digital photography or construction, was important for attracting older men.

However, projects and services do not have to be targeted exclusively at men to achieve this: adding skill-based options into more general activity programmes can be equally effective.

Interestingly, in delivering the social activities taster project in Winsford, Community Compass found that while men were more likely to take part in activities which involved both exercise and socialising, such as gardening and outdoor crafts, this was only the case for new participants – once they had become comfortable in a group, they were more willing to try purely ‘social’ activities.

Making connections  Supporting success  Future-proofing  Capturing impact