Intergenerational Interventions
Denunciar
Alison ClydeSeguir
22 de Mar de 2023•0 gostou•126 visualizações
0 gostaram
Seja o primeiro a gostar disto
mostrar mais
visualizações
Vistos totais
0
No Slideshare
0
De incorporações
0
Número de incorporações
0
Check these out next
Intergenerational Interventions
22 de Mar de 2023•0 gostou•126 visualizações
0 gostaram
Seja o primeiro a gostar disto
mostrar mais
visualizações
Vistos totais
0
No Slideshare
0
De incorporações
0
Número de incorporações
0
Baixar para ler offline
Denunciar
Educação
An evidence gap map: bringing the research to you In this session we will be presenting our recently produced evidence gap map of research on intergenerational interventions. The map contains all the published and unpublished studies evaluating the effectiveness of intergenerational interventions using a randomised controlled trial design. The map contains 500 studies.
Alison ClydeSeguir
Recomendados
AOTA posterAlexis Henderson
ECCD in Emergenciesbaa15
Promoting Community Wide Engagement in Evidence-Based Prevention by Dr. Judit...Georgia State School of Public Health
Developing materials and products for effective behavior change communication Regional AIDS Training Network
Dr Margo Greenwood (March 2017) Community- Based Participatory Research: A S...Sightsavers
Issues and challenges in participant recruitment: Using innovative technologi...Center for Innovative Public Health Research
Intergenerational Interventions
- Generations Working Together Conference 2023 ‘Intergenerational interventions – an evidence gap map: bringing research to you’
- Agenda •What is evidence and why does it matter •IGEN project summary and stakeholder engagement •The Evidence Gap Map – interactive exercise •Questions •Further work and next steps
- What is research evidence and why does it matter?
- What does evidence look like?
- Why does it matter?
- In pairs or small groups think about how you would prove your intervention is good/ how would you convince a funder to fund your intervention? - Consider how/what would you measure? - what would you want to show/be able to say? - what would be the story/message?
- Intergenerational interventions for older people and children/young people an evidence gap map
- Summary Funded by NIHR Evidence Synthesis Programme (Sheffield and Exeter) 3 stages – EGM, 2 reviews, overarching report Aim to understand and map out the research evidence and gaps in research on intergenerational interventions
- Stakeholders
- Evidence Gap Map ‘Intergenerational practice is the beginning of an inclusive society’ • Community vs mental health • Intervention levels
- Beth Johnson FOUNDATION | A Guide to Intergenerational Practice – adapted from Kaplan, M, Toward an intergenerational way of life, Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences, 96 (2), 5-9, 2004.
- Evidence Gap Map
- What is an Evidence Gap Map? A visual and interactive way to present the existing evidence and gaps <a href="https://www.flaticon.com/free-icons/emoji" title="emoji icons">Emoji icons created by Freepik - Flaticon</a> <a href="https://www.flaticon.com/free-icons/tick" title="tick icons">Tick icons created by Vectors Market - Flaticon</a> <a href="https://www.flaticon.com/free-icons/cancel" title="cancel icons">Cancel icons created by hqrloveq - Flaticon</a> A systematic and rigorously conducted evidence synthesis product Does not include a pooling or synthesis of findings
- Map activity 1 (laptops) • Find all the RCTs on attitudes in younger people • Find all the studies looking at level 7 interventions • Find all the studies looking at interventions using music
- Map activity 2 (big screen) In small groups or pairs and write down/think of a question to explore in the map - Be ready to share your idea with the group to explore it on the map on the large screen altogether. - Think about what steps you might take/where you would look on the map to find the answer
- Further work
- Systematic reviews What is the effect of intergenerational activities on the wellbeing and mental health of older people? What is the effect of intergenerational activities on the wellbeing and mental health of children and younger people?
- Key findings so far (older people)
- Findings (children and younger people)
- 5 Studies • Language learning (Italian and Spanish) (16 yrs) • Literacy through music (3- 4 years) • Programmes to prevent drug and excessive alcohol use (11-12 years) • Programmes to develop anger management skills (11-12 years) • Social interaction (14-15 years)
- Pro-social behaviour Affect Wellbeing Problem solving efficacy Self worth Coping with stress and anxiety Aggressive attitudes Language development Qual outcomes Interactions Carcavilla (2020) Smile Connect X Detmer et al (2020) Musical therapy x x x Kessler et al (2007) Social Interaction x LoSciuto et al (1996) Across ages x X X x x Sipsas-Herrmann (2000) SCARE X
- Next Steps FUNDING FOR FURTHER WORK RESEARCH FOR SOCIAL CARE PLEASE LET US KNOW IF YOU USE THE MAP AND HOW IT HAS HELPED YOU
- Thank you! Jo Thompson Coon J.Thompson-Coon@exeter.ac.uk Fiona Campbell f.campbell@sheffield.ac.uk Morwenna Rogers Morwenna.Rogers@exeter.ac.uk Rebecca Whear R.S.Whear@exeter.ac.uk
Notas do Editor
- This depends on the question we want to ask: Examples: Is treatment X better than treatment Y? = Effectiveness studies (Controlled trials) 2. Does exposure to X lead to Y? = Observational studies (Cohort, case control) 3. What are people’s experiences of X = Qualitative study All of these questions can also be answered with a systematic review, which combines results across multiple studies that ask the same questions.
- Discuss search method briefly - We searched MEDLINE (via OvidSp), EMBASE (via OvidSp), PsycINFO (via OvidSp), CINAHL(via EBSCOHost), Social Policy and Practice (via OvidSp), Health Management Information Consortium(via OvidSp), Ageline (via EBSCOhost), ASSIA (via ProQuest), Social Science Citations Index (via Web of Science), ERIC (via EBSCOhost), Community Care Inform Children, Research in Practice for Children, ChildData (via Social Policy and Practice), the Campbell Library, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the CENTRAL database between 22nd and 30th July 2021. We searched for additional grey literature via the Conference Proceedings Citation Index (via Web of Science) and ProQuest Dissertation & Theses Global and via relevant organisation websites e.g. Age UK, Age International, the Centre for Ageing Better, Barnado’s, Children’s Commission, UNICEF, Generations Working Together, the Intergenerational Foundation, Linking Generations and The Beth Johnson Foundation) and the Ottawa initiative called Older Adults and Students for Intergenerational support. The searches identified 12,056 references. 500 research articles were included in the evidence gap map conducted across 27 countries. 26 systematic reviews, 236 quantitative comparative studies (of which 38 were randomised controlled trials), 227 were qualitative studies (or had a qualitative element), 105 were observational studies (or had elements of observational methods) and 82 used a mixed methods approach. This was more than we expected! Some studies only reported outcomes for one population – we want to understand the impact or potential impact for both populations.
- We have a large and diverse group of stakeholders including people with lived experience, colleagues from several universities (Exeter University, UCL, University of Hertfordshire, and the university of Sheffield). People from organisations like the Centre for Ageing Better; Cochrane Campbell Global Ageing Partnership; Age UK Cornwall; UNICEF as well as representatives from local councils (Sheffield City Council) and public health, adult social care, children service and charities ; and several people in this room from the “Only Connect!” Network. We have worked with our stakeholders (online) to: Develop the protocol - outcomes Develop the map – structure Share findings/edit the report Decide on the research question to answer in stage 2
- Most of you will recognise this quote from Peter its been used a few times already which I think really reflects how much we all really are coming at this from the same or similar perspective. Our stakeholders like many of you have mentioned already were keen to know the impact these interventions have at the community level as well as on the mental health and wellbeing of both populations – the map shows that whilst many mental health and wellbeing outcomes are reported in the research literature not much is reported on community outcomes or perspectives of the community, if we expect intergenerational interventions to have an impact on the community then how can we measure this?. Ellie identified a useful tool from the Beth Johnson Foundation which we used to also help us structure the EGM. The tool helps us to categorise the intergenerational interventions in terms of the level of engagement that the intervention enables. As Alison mentioned in her talk there are interventions/studies that are shortlived 6 week studies and then they disappear – we found a lot of those in the literature which suggests the information is not always completely lost but there must be a large number of these interventions that don’t publish anything – and these are lost and are wasteful.
- Describe some of the levels. Level 1 and 2 no real contact between the generations to level 7 interventions that are submerged in everyday community life As Alison mentioned in her talk there are interventions/studies that are shortlived 6 week studies and then they disappear – we found a lot of those in the literature which suggests the information is not always completely lost but there must be a large number of these interventions that don’t publish anything – and these are lost and are wasteful. The research in our EGM mainly focuses on levels 4,5,6. By nature of our inclusion criteria levels 1 and 2 are omitted from the EGM as they do not involve ‘direct’ contact/relationship building. We will see how this helped structure the EGM later.
- Add in some answers/questions here Put link to map in chat https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Portals/35/Maps/ExeterNIHR/Non-familial_Intergenerational_Interventions.html Q1 – how many RCTs in each level L3=1, L5=9, L6=4 Q2 – 35 in level 7 (remember to take off the filters, go to view records and select from there) – What else might we want to include here? (mixed levels option) Q3 – 127 record in total, by looking at the map where are the most interventions (what level), how many are for 0-5s = 55, 6-12 = 59, 12-18 = 36, 19-30 = 16 Any other questions they wish to explore?
- Conducted separately (older and younger people) but will be brought together in an overarching report. Wellbeing and mental health refers to outcomes that included aspects of mental health like anxiety and depression, wellbeing such as self esteem, life satisfaction, quality of life, agency, self efficacy and community. Say what outcomes reported more often/across studies.
- What we have found so far: Despite interventions being intergenerational often studies only report on outcomes for one of the generations not both Not much reporting on community outcomes – this needs to change There is RCT evidence but the research is of poor quality but suggests some benefits to improving depression and self-esteem in older people Most interventions use some sort of theory or evidence to justify their design – we are exploring this further and would like to understand more about what it is about successful interventions that make them work.