Addressing social isolation among older people in Danish senior centres: staff acceptability of intervention delivery.

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Sofie Langergaard, Rhiannon Evans, Jane Andreasen, Kirsten Schultz Petersen, Charlotte Overgaard
{"title":"Addressing social isolation among older people in Danish senior centres: staff acceptability of intervention delivery.","authors":"Sofie Langergaard, Rhiannon Evans, Jane Andreasen, Kirsten Schultz Petersen, Charlotte Overgaard","doi":"10.1093/heapro/daaf136","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Social isolation is a significant challenge among the aging population. A newly developed intervention was implemented in municipal senior centres to support new users to become part of the social community, with the intention of reducing social isolation. The intervention consisted of a starting conversation with staff members, a 'buddy' from existing users and monthly follow-up conversations. This study aims to explore the acceptability of the intervention among senior centre staff members as part of a process evaluation, drawing upon the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability by Sekhon et al. Data were collected through observation and interviews with senior centre staff members (N = 10) involved in the implementation and delivery of the intervention. Data analysis was inspired by thematic analysis. The results indicated a decline in acceptability during the intervention period. Underlying reasons were organized in three main themes: 'Why do it this way, when I can do it my way'; 'I don't like to place these demands on the user'; and 'We just had to prioritise'. Overall, participants suggested a preference for a noninstitutional approach to welcoming new users and felt the intervention misaligned with the organizational goals to improve health. High staff turnover and workload further negatively affected intervention acceptability. This study highlights the complexities of implementing interventions in senior centres, where staff hesitance and a misalignment with values can affect intervention acceptability.</p>","PeriodicalId":54256,"journal":{"name":"Health Promotion International","volume":"40 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Promotion International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daaf136","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Social isolation is a significant challenge among the aging population. A newly developed intervention was implemented in municipal senior centres to support new users to become part of the social community, with the intention of reducing social isolation. The intervention consisted of a starting conversation with staff members, a 'buddy' from existing users and monthly follow-up conversations. This study aims to explore the acceptability of the intervention among senior centre staff members as part of a process evaluation, drawing upon the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability by Sekhon et al. Data were collected through observation and interviews with senior centre staff members (N = 10) involved in the implementation and delivery of the intervention. Data analysis was inspired by thematic analysis. The results indicated a decline in acceptability during the intervention period. Underlying reasons were organized in three main themes: 'Why do it this way, when I can do it my way'; 'I don't like to place these demands on the user'; and 'We just had to prioritise'. Overall, participants suggested a preference for a noninstitutional approach to welcoming new users and felt the intervention misaligned with the organizational goals to improve health. High staff turnover and workload further negatively affected intervention acceptability. This study highlights the complexities of implementing interventions in senior centres, where staff hesitance and a misalignment with values can affect intervention acceptability.

解决丹麦老年中心老年人的社会孤立问题:工作人员对提供干预措施的接受程度。
社会孤立是老龄化人口面临的一个重大挑战。在城市老年中心实施了一项新开发的干预措施,以支持新用户成为社会社区的一部分,目的是减少社会孤立。干预包括与工作人员的开始对话,现有用户的“好友”以及每月的后续对话。本研究旨在利用Sekhon等人的可接受性理论框架,探讨中心高级工作人员对干预的可接受性,作为过程评估的一部分。通过观察和访谈参与干预措施实施和交付的中心高级工作人员(N = 10)收集数据。数据分析受到主题分析的启发。结果表明,在干预期间,可接受性有所下降。潜在的原因分为三个主题:“当我可以用我的方式做事时,为什么要这样做?”“我不喜欢把这些要求强加给用户”;以及“我们必须分清轻重缓急”。总体而言,与会者建议采用非机构方式欢迎新用户,并认为这种干预与改善健康的组织目标不一致。高人员流动率和工作量进一步对干预的可接受性产生负面影响。本研究强调了在老年中心实施干预的复杂性,工作人员的犹豫和价值观的不一致会影响干预的可接受性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Promotion International
Health Promotion International Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
7.40%
发文量
146
期刊介绍: Health Promotion International contains refereed original articles, reviews, and debate articles on major themes and innovations in the health promotion field. In line with the remits of the series of global conferences on health promotion the journal expressly invites contributions from sectors beyond health. These may include education, employment, government, the media, industry, environmental agencies, and community networks. As the thought journal of the international health promotion movement we seek in particular theoretical, methodological and activist advances to the field. Thus, the journal provides a unique focal point for articles of high quality that describe not only theories and concepts, research projects and policy formulation, but also planned and spontaneous activities, organizational change, as well as social and environmental development.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信